Skip to main content

Full text of "The lesser eastern churches"

See other formats 


THE  LESSER 
STERN  CHIP' 


ffl 


transf, 


sm- 


^ — < 


f«RfO 


THE  LESSER  EASTERN 
CHURCHES 


tfUbil  obstat 

SYDNEY  F.  SMITH,  SJ. 

imprimatur 

*  PETRUS, 

Epus  Southwarc. 


CHURCH    OF    ST.    HRIPSIME    AT    ETSHMIADZIN. 


{Frontispiece 


THE 
LESSER  EASTERN  CHURCHES 


BY 

ADRIAN  FORTESCUE,  PH.D.,  D.D. 


WITH  ILLUSTRATIONS 


LONDON      :     CATHOLIC    TRUTH    SOCIETY 
69  SOUTHWARK  BRIDGE  ROAD,  S.E.    -     W3 


'E/cropi  fxkv  koL  Tpcocrt  to  KepStov  avrap  'A^atovs 
Srjpbv  i/xrjs  /cat  (rrjs  epcSos  fAvrjo-ecrOcu  olw. 

'AAAa.  tol  fxkv  irpoTt.TvyQa.1  idcro/xev  ol^vv/x^vol  irep 
Ovfxov  ivl  o-TqOtcro-L  (f)i\ov  Sa/Aacravrcs  av('iyKr). 

Iliad,  xix.  63-66. 

AUG  27  1355 


PREFACE 

This  book  forms  a  continuation,  or  second  part,  of  The  Orthodox 
Eastern  Church  by  the  same  author.1  Its  object  is  to  describe 
the  lesser  separated  Eastern  Churches  in  the  same  way  as  that 
described  the  greatest.  "  Greatest  "  and  "  lesser/'  by  the  way, 
are  only  meant  to  qualify  their  size.  No  opinion  is  thereby 
expressed  as  to  their  relative  merit  (see  p.  446) . 

There  is  a  difference  in  the  subject  of  this  volume,  which  affects 
its  treatment.  These  smaller  Churches  are  much  less  known. 
There  is  a  vast  literature  on  the  Orthodox  Church,  so  that  the 
only  difficulty  in  writing  the  former  book  was  that  of  selection 
and  arrangement.  Moreover,  Orthodox  official  documents  and 
service-books  (at  least  in  their  original  form)  are  in  Greek,  which 
it  is  no  great  merit  to  know.  Much  of  the  matter  treated  here  is 
rather  of  the  nature  of  a  land,  if  not  unknown,  at  least  difficult 
of  access.  There  is  far  less  information  to  be  had  about  the 
other  Eastern  Churches.  And  their  native  literature  is  contained 
in  many  difficult  tongues.  So  to  write  this  book  was  a  much 
more  arduous  task,  and  the  result  may  be  less  satisfactory.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  has  the  advantage  of  greater  originality. 
Concerning  the  Orthodox  I  said  nothing  which  could  not  be  found 
fairly  easily  in  European  books  already.  Here  I  think  I  have 
been  able,  in  certain  points,  to  bring  what  will  be  new  to 
anyone  who  has  not  made  some  study  of  Eastern  matters  and 
languages.  Part  of  this  is  gathered  from  notes  made  by  myself 
in  their  lands,  interviews  with  prelates  and  clergy  of  these  rites, 
observations  of  their  services,  and  information  supplied  by  friends 
in  those  parts. 

As  for  literary  sources,  I  have,  of  course,  read  many  books  on 
1  London  :   Catholic  Truth  Society,  3rd  edition,  191 1. 


VI 


PREFACE 


Eastern  Churches  by  modern  writers.  But,  as  will  be  seen  from 
my  references,  I  have  compiled  my  own  book,  as  far  as  I  could, 
from  original  sources.  It  is  perhaps  hardly  necessary  to  say  that 
all  my  quotations  are  at  firsthand.  Where  I  refer  to  Al-Makrizi, 
Severus  of  Al-Ushmunain,  Shahrastani,  Barhebraeus,  and  so  on, 
I  have  gathered  my  information  from  their  works.  Only  in  the 
case  of  Armenian  books  am  I  unable,  through  ignorance  of  the 
language,  to  consult  any.  Fortunately,  Langlois'  collection  of 
Armenian  historians  in  a  French  version  to  some  extent  com- 
pensates for  this. 

One  of  the  great  practical  difficulties  was  how  to  spell  proper 
names.  Without  any  wish  to  parade  scientific  transliteration,  it 
seems  nevertheless  clear  that  one  must  have  some  system  for 
writing  names  from  so  many  languages,  at  least  enough  system 
to  spell  the  same  name  always  in  the  same  way.  The  most 
obvious  suggestion  would  perhaps  seem  to  be  to  spell  each  name 
in  the  usual,  familiar  way.  As  far  as  there  is  such  a  way  this  plan 
has  been  adopted.  Names  which  have  a  recognized  English 
form,  such  as  John,  Peter,  Gregory,  are  left  in  this  form.  So 
also  when  the  Latin  form  seems  universally  familiar  in  English— 
Athanasius,  Epiphanius.  But  there  are  many  names  which  have 
no  recognized  spelling.  Nothing  can  make  such  as  Badr  algamali, 
Hnanyesu*,  Msihazka,  Sbaryesu'  look  familiar  to  an  English 
reader.  The  old-fashioned  way  was  to  make  the  nearest  attempt 
one  could  at  representing  the  sound  of  these  names,  according  to 
the  use  of  the  Roman  letters  in  the  language  in  which  the  book 
is  written.  This  has  many  inconveniences.  First,  to  anyone 
who  knows  how  such  names  are  written  in  their  own  letters  it  is  as 
irritating  as  to  see  a  well-known  French  writer  called  "  Bwalo." 
Secondly,  the  Roman  letters  represent  different  sounds  in  different 
languages.  A  German  writes  "  Dschafar,"  an  Italian  "  Giafar," 
a  Frenchman  "  Djafar "  for  the  same  name.  In  English, 
particularly,  the  same  letter  represents  often  a  multitude  of 
sounds.  "  Ptough,"  used  in  the  translation  of  Ormanian's  book,1 
represents  no  particular  sound  to  an  Englishman.  Thirdly, 
Semitic  languages  have  letters  of  which  the  sound  cannot  be  even 
approximately  indicated  by  any  combination  of  ours.  And, 
1  The  Church  of  Armenia  (Mowbray,  1912),  p.  148, 


PREFACE  vii 

lastly,  the  same  names  are  pronounced  differently  in  different 
places.  East  and  West  Syriac,  Egyptian  and  Syrian  Arabic,  have 
notable  differences  of  pronunciation. 

The  only  reasonable  course,  then,  seems  to  be  transliteration 
into  conventional  combinations,  which  always  represent,  not  the 
same  sounds,  but  the  same  letters  of  the  original  alphabet.  Then 
anyone  who  knows  the  language  can  put  the  word  back  into  its 
own  letters.  He  who  does  not  will  be  puzzled  as  to  how  it  should 
be  pronounced  ;  but  this  is  the  case  always  when  we  do  not  know 
the  language  in  question.  Now,  the  first  principle  of  exact 
transliteration  is  to  use  one  Roman  letter  for  one  letter  of  the 
original  alphabet.  The  reason  of  this  is  plain.  In  English  we 
use  combinations  of  letters  to  represent  one  sound,  such  as  sh, 
th,  ph.  In  Semitic  languages  (and  Coptic  and  Armenian)  these 
sounds  have  each  one  letter.  But  the  two  separate  sounds  may 
also  follow  one  another,  each  represented  by  its  own  letter  (as  in 
mishap,  anthill,  uphill).  If,  then,  we  use  several  letters  for  one 
sound,  how  are  we  to  write  these  ?  Supposing,  then,  this  essential 
principle  of  one  letter  for  one  letter,  it  follows  (since  we  have  not 
nearly  enough  Roman  letters  to  go  round)  that  we  must  differ- 
entiate them  by  various  dots  and  dashes.  This  is  not  pretty,  and 
it  gives  trouble  to  the  printer  ;  but  it  is  the  only  way  of  saving  the 
principle,  that  anyone  who  knows  the  original  letters  may  be 
able  to  put  words  back  into  them  with  ambiguity.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  there  is  a  system,  already  very  commonly  accepted,  at 
least  in  scientific  books,  by  which  this  may  be  done.  It  is  simple 
and  easily  remembered.  Shortly,  it  comes  to  this :  for  our  sh 
sound  (in  "  shop  ")  use  s,  with  a  wedge  above  :  x  for  the  softened 
Semitic  "  begadkefath  "  letters  put  a  line  below  ;  for  "  emphatic  " 
letters  (h,  s,  d,  t,  z,  k  2)  put  a  point  below  ;  for  Arabic  gim  put  a 
dash  above.  The  strong  Arabic  guttural  ha  has  a  curve  below. 
'Ain  is  * ;  and  the  stronger  Arabic  form  of  the  same  sound  g  (gain). 
Hamza,  when  wanted,  is  \8    Consonantic  i  and  u  are  y  and  w.     In 

1  This  form  is  borrowed  from  Czech. 

2  k  is  better  than  q,  since  it  applies  to  the  k  sound  the  same  difference 
for  its  emphatic  form  as  have  the  other  emphatic  letters. 

3  The  signs  '  and  '  are  chosen  arbitrarily  to  represent  sounds  for  which 
we  have  no  equivalent.  All  that  can  be  said  for  them  is  that  printers  have 
them  in  their  founts,  and  that  they  will  do  as  well  as  any  other  arbitrary 


viii  PREFACE 

this  way  all  possible  sounds  may  be  represented,  each  by  one 
symbol.  In  the  manuscript  of  this  book,  despairing  of  the 
inconsistencies  of  other  systems,  I  first  adopted  this  one  through- 
out. To  Semitic  languages  it  can  be  applied  easily  and  regularly. 
Coptic  has  Greek  letters,  except  seven,  which  may  be  represented 
by  similar  differentiation.  In  Armenian,  too,  I  found  how  the 
names  which  occur  are  spelled  in  their  own  letters,  and  so  trans- 
literated them  on  the  same  plan,  differentiating  by  the  accepted 
points  and  dashes.  Then,  on  reading  the  manuscript  again,  I 
saw  more  clearly  the  difficulties  of  the  plan.  It  involves  very 
considerable  labour  to  printers.  Also,  in  a  merely  popular  book, 
perhaps  such  exactness  is  superfluous.  It  demands  much  of  the 
reader  of  such  a  book  as  this.  He  would  have  to  learn  that  t 
with  a  bar  beneath  it  is  our  th,  that  p  with  a  bar  is  our/,  and  so  on. 
So  I  have  changed  most  of  the  spellings  back  to  an  easier  form. 
ph  is  always  superfluous,  since  we  have  /.  But  I  have  restored 
sh  and  th,  dropping  the  principle  of  one  letter  for  one  letter. 
Even  the  ugly  kh  appears  sometimes  for  the  third  (strongest) 
Arabic  h  sound.  But  I  have  kept  the  point  beneath  for  the  em- 
phatic letters.  One  must  make  some  difference  between  "  kalb," 
which  means  a  heart,  and  "  kalb,"  a  dog.  I  have  left  ai  and  au 
for  diphthongs.1  Syriac  doubled  letters  are  generally  not  marked. 
Since  their  theoretic  tashdid  is  neither  written  nor  (at  least  in 
Western  Syriac)  pronounced,  it  seems  superfluous  to  note  it.2 
So  with  this  rather  unsatisfactory  compromise  I  leave  the  proper 
names,  with  the  hope  that  they  will  not  too  much  irritate  anyone 
who  knows  how  they  are  spelled  in  their  own  characters,  and  that 
he  will  excuse  the  compromise,  considering  how  difficult  it  is  to 
carry  out  a  consistent  plan  in  this  matter. 

symbols.  The  latest  plan  (in  Germany)  is  to  use  a  figure  like  a  3  turned 
the  wrong  way  for  *Ain  (suggested  by  the  shape  of  the  Arabic  letter). 
This  has  advantages.  It  looks  more  like  a  real,  whole  letter  (which  of 
course  'Ain  is)  ;  and  its  strong  form  can  be  made,  according  to  the  general 
rule,  by  a  point  under  it.     But  its  use  means  casting  a  special  type. 

1  Ay  and  aw  are  right,  but  look  odd. 

2  Of  the  softened  "  begadkefath  "  letters,  p  becomes  /  and  t  becomes 
th.  The  softening  of  b,  g,  d,  and  k  is  not  noted,  v  looks  too  odd,  kh 
suggests  rather  another  letter  (Hebrew  Heth).  bh,  gh,  dh  do  not  suggest 
any  particular  sound  to  an  English  reader.  After  all,  Greek  0,  7,  5  are 
softened  too,  yet  we  do  not  mark  the  softening. 


PREFACE  ix 

In  so  great  a  mass  of  details  I  cannot  hope  that  there  are  no 
inaccuracies.  But  I  have  taken  pains  to  verify  statements, 
especially  about  modern  practice,  and  I  think  I  have  given  my 
authority  for  everything. 

For  information  about  what  is  now  done  and  believed  in  these 
Churches  I  am  indebted  to  many  people,  to  their  own  clergy 
and  Catholic  missionaries.  More  than  to  anyone  else  I  owe 
thanks  to  the  French  Jesuit  Fathers  at  Beirut.  To  their  guest 
they  were  the  kindest  and  most  hospitable  of  hosts,  in  their 
"  Faculte  orientale  "  most  capable  teachers.  Since  my  return  to 
England  they  have  kept  up  cordial  relations,  and  have  always 
answered  the  many  questions  I  have  sent  them.  In  answering 
these  questions,  and  in  procuring  photographs  for  illustration, 
Father  Louis  Jalabert,  S.J.,  has  been  more  than  kind.  To  him 
and  to  his  colleagues  in  Syria  every  Catholic  must  wish  God-speed 
in  the  work  of  educating  and  converting  Eastern  Christians, 
undertaken  by  them  according  to  the  noble  tradition  of  their 
nation  and  their  order. 

I  have  also  to  thank  the  Rev.  Dr.  W.  A.  Wigram  and  the 
Rev.  F.  N.  Heazell,  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury's  Mission 
to  the  Assyrian  Christians,  for  corrections  and  photographs  of 
Mar  Shim'un  and  Kudshanis ;  also  Mr  K.  N.  Daniel,  editor  of 
the  Malankara  Sabha  Tharaka  paper  at  Kottayam,  for  infor- 
mation contained  in  the  paragraph  at  pp.  368-375. 

There  is  no  bibliography  in  this  volume.  Most  books  on  these 
Churches  treat  also  of  matters  which  concern  the  Uniates.  Rather 
than  repeat  the  same  titles  in  both  volumes,  it  seems  convenient 
to  reserve  them  for  the  next,  which  will  be  the  last  of  the  series. 
In  it  there  will  be  a  fairly  complete  list  of  books  on  all  these  lesser 
Churches. 

And,  lastly,  I  hope  that  nothing  in  this  book  will  seem  to  argue 
anything  but  sympathy  for  the  people  who,  isolated  for  centuries, 
have  still  kept  faithful  to  the  name  of  Christ ;  sympathy  and 
regret  for  the  lamentable  schisms  which  are  not  so  much  their 
fault  as  those  of  their  fathers,  Bar  Sauma,  Dioscor,  Baradai,  in 
the  distant  5th  and  6th  centuries. 

Letchworth,  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  1913. 


CONTENTS 

PART   I 
THE   NESTORIANS 

PAGE 

CHAPTER    I 
Of  the  Lesser  Eastern  Churches  in  General  .         .        3 

Summary. 

CHAPTER   II 

The  East  Syrian  Church  before  Nestorianism         .         .       17 
1.  Political  History.    2.  The  Church  of  Edessa.    3.  The 
Persian  Church.     Summary. 

CHAPTER    III 

Nestorianism .54 

1.  Nestorius  and  the  Council  of  Ephesus  (431).  2.  The 
End  of  Nestorius.  Was  he  a  Heretic  ?  3.  Nes- 
torianism in  Syria.  4.  Nestorianism  in  Persia. 
Summary. 

CHAPTER    IV 

The  Nestorian  Church  in  the  Past 88 

1.  General  History.  2.  Nestorian  Missions.  3.  Nes- 
torian Monasticism.     Summary. 

CHAPTER   V 

The  Present  Nestorian  Church 114 

1.  The  Rediscovery  of  the  Nestorians.  2.  The  Nes- 
torian Hierarchy.  3.  The  Faith  of  the  Nestorians. 
4.  Nestorian  Rites.     Summary. 


xii  CONTENTS 

PART  II 
THE  COPTS 


CHAPTER   VI 

PAGE 

MONOPHYSISM  .........       163 

I.  The  First  Monophysites.  2.  The  Robber-Synod 
of  Ephesus  (449).  3.  The  Council  of  Chalcedon 
(451).  4.  Later  Monophysite  Troubles.  5.  The 
Acacian  Schism  (484-519).  6.  The  Three  Chapters 
(544-554).    7.  Monotheletism  (622-680).    Summary. 

CHAPTER  VII 
The  Coptic  Church  in  the  Past  .  .  .  .  .  214 
1.  The  Copts  in  the  Roman  Empire.  2.  The  Arab 
Conquest  of  Egypt  (639).  3.  Under  the  Sunni 
Khalifs  (639-969).  4.  The  Fatimids  (969-1 171). 
5.  Saladin  and  his  Successors  (11 71-1250).  6.  The 
Mamluks  (1250-1517).  7.  Under  the  Ottoman 
Turks  (1517-1882).     Summary. 

CHAPTER    VIII 

The  Copts  in  our  Time 252 

1.  The  Patriarch  and  Hierarchy.  2.  The  Coptic  Faith. 
3.  Churches,  Ornaments,  Vestments.  4.  Liturgical 
Books.     5.  Coptic  Services.     Summary. 


PART   III 

THE   ABYSSINIANS,  JACOBITES,  AND 
MALABAR  CHRISTIANS 


CHAPTER   IX 
The  Abyssinian  Church         ....... 

1.  The  Conversion  of  the  Ethiopians.  2.  Christian 
Ethiopia  in  the  Past.  3.  Christianity  in  Nubia. 
4.  The  Negus  and  his  People.  5.  The  Hierarchy. 
6.  Rites  and  Ceremonies.  7.  Ethiopic  Faith  and 
Customs — Judaism.     Summary. 


293 


CONTENTS  xiii 


CHAPTER    X 

PAGE 

The  Jacobites 323 

1.  The  Foundation  of  the  Jacobite  Church.  2.  The 
Jacobites  in  the  Past.  3.  Organization  and  Hier- 
archy. 4.  The  Jacobite  Faith.  5.  Rites  and  Liturgy. 
Summary. 

CHAPTER   XI 

The  Church  of  Malabar 353 

I.  The  Foundation  of  the  Church.  2.  Before  the 
Portuguese  Conquest.  3.  Since  the  Portuguese 
Conquest.  4.  The  Land  and  People.  5.  The  Schisms 
at  Malabar.     6.  Faith  and  Rites.     Summary. 


PART   IV 
THE   ARMENIANS 

CHAPTER    XII 

The  Armenian  Church  in  the  Past     .....     383 

1.  Political  History.      2.  The  Conversion  of  Armenia. 

3.  Catholic  Armenia.    4.  The  Breach  with  Caesarea. 

5.  Monophysite  Armenia.      6.  The  Five  Armenian 

Patriarchs.    7.  The  Nineteenth  Century.    Summary. 

CHAPTER   XIII 
The  Armenian  Church  To-day     ......     424 

1.  The  Armenian  Faith.  2.  The  Hierarchy.  3.  Churches 
and  Vestments.  4.  The  Calendar,  Books  and  Ser- 
vices.    5.  The  Holy  Liturgy.     Summary. 

CHAPTER   XIV 
The  Hope  of  Reunion    ........     446 

Index 451 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


FIG.  PAGE 

i.  Church  of  St.  Hripsime  at  Etshmiadzin        .      {Frontispiece) 

2.  Kudshanis 127 

(From  a  photograph  by  the  Rev.  F.  N.  Heazell) 

3.  The  Nestorian  Katholikos,  Mar  Benyamin  Shim'un  .     133 

(From  a  photograph  by  the  Rev.  F.  N.  Heazell) 

4.  The  Patriarchal  Church  at  Kudshanis        .         .         .144 

(From  a  photograph  by  the  Rev.  F.  N.  Heazell) 

5.  Plan  of  the  Patriarchal  Church  at  Kudshanis  .     146 

6.  Plan  of  the  Church  of  Abu  Sargah  at  Old  Cairo     .     266 


7.  Church  of  St.  Mercurius  (Abu  Saifain)  at  Old  Cairo 

The  Ikonostasion  ....... 

8.  Church  of  St.  Mercurius  (Abu  Saifain)  at  Old  Cairo 

The  Haikal     ........ 


9.  A  Coptic  Bishop 

10.  The  Abyssinian  Primate,  Abuna  Matewos     . 

n.  The    Abyssinian    Monastery    by    the    Anastasis    at 
Jerusalem 

12.  The    Jacobite    Patriarch,    MAr    Ignatius    'Abdullah 

Sattuf       ....... 

13.  Church  at  Karingachery 

14.  A  Malabar  Bishop 

15.  The  Patriarchal  Church  at  Etshmiadzin 

16.  Plan  of  the  Patriarchal  Church  at  Etshmiadzin 

17.  The  Armenian  Church  of  St.  James  at  Jerusalem 

18.  Armenian  Bishop  and  Vardapet        .... 


268 

269 

273 
310 

313 

339 
376 
378 
429 
433 
435 
437 


PART  I 

THE    NESTORIANS 


CHAPTER   I 

OF   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES   IN    GENERAL 

The  Orthodox  Church  is  considerably  the  largest  in  the  East. 
But  it  is  by  no  means  the  only  Eastern  Church.  The  idea,  which 
one  still  sometimes  finds  among  Protestants,  of  one  vast  "  Eastern 
Church,"  united  in  the  same  primitive  faith,  knowing  nothing, 
never  having  known  anything,  of  the  Papacy,  is  the  crudest 
fiction.  There  neither  is  nor  ever  has  been  such  a  body.  Eastern 
Christendom  is  riddled  with  sects,  heresies  and  schisms,  almost  as 
much  as  the  West.  In  the  East,  too,  if  you  look  for  unity  you 
will  find  it  only  among  those  who  acknowledge  the  Pope.1  This, 
then,  is  the  first  thing  to  realize  clearly.  There  are,  besides  the 
Orthodox  Church,  other  Eastern  Churches,  which  are  no  more  in 
communion  with  her  than  they  are  with  us.  To  the  Orthodox 
Christian  an  Armenian,  a  Copt,  a  Jacobite  is  just  as  much  a 
heretic  and  a  schismatic  as  a  Latin  or  a  Protestant.  Though  no 
other  Eastern  Church  can  be  compared  to  the  Orthodox  for  size, 
nevertheless  at  least  some  of  them  (that  of  the  Armenians,  for 
instance)  are  large  and  important  bodies.  This  book  treats  of 
these  other  separated  Eastern  Churches.  Their  situation  is  not 
difficult  to  grasp.  All  spring  from  the  two  great  heresies  of  the 
5th  century,  Nestorianism,  condemned  by  the  Council  of 
Ephesus  in  431,  and  its  extreme  opposite,  Monophysism,  con- 
demned by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  in  451.  These  two  heresies 
account  for  all  the  other  separated  Eastern  Churches,  besides  the 

1  Even  the  Orthodox  Church  itself  (which  is  what  these  people  probably 
really  mean  by  the  "  Eastern  Church  ")  is  torn  by  schisms,  as  has  been 
shown  in  the  former  book. 


4  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Orthodox.  Arianism  was  for  a  long  time  the  religion  of  various 
barbarous  races  (the  Goths,  for  instance),  but  it  died  out  many 
centuries  ago.  There  is  now  no  Arian  Church.  The  Pelagian 
heresy  never  formed  an  organized  Church.  Manichaeism  made 
communities  which  afterwards  disappeared.  It  is  one  side  of  a 
very  great  movement  that  produced  all  manner  of  curious  sects 
in  East  and  West  till  far  into  the  Middle  Ages — Bogomils,  Pauli- 
cians,  Albigensians,  Bonshommes,  and  so  on.  All  these  too  have 
practically  disappeared,  though  in  the  West  (Bohemia)  the  last 
remnant  of  this  movement  may  have  had  something  to  do  with 
the  beginning  of  the  Reformation.  In  the  East,  the  Paulicians 
and  Bogomils  had  a  rather  important  history.  But  they  too 
disappeared.1  Monotheletism  formed  a  Church  which  has  long 
returned  to  the  Catholic  faith,  and  is  now  the  one  example  of  an 
entirely  Uniate  body,  having  no  schismatical  counterpart. 

So  all  existing  separated  Eastern  Churches,  other  than  the 
Orthodox,  are  either  Nestorian  or  Monophysite.  So  far  the 
situation  is  simple.  Now  enters  another  factor  of  enormous 
importance,  at  any  rate  to  Catholics.  At  various  times  certain 
members,  sometimes  bishops  and  Patriarchs,  of  these  three  main 
classes  of  Eastern  Churches  (Orthodox,  Nestorians,  Monophy- 
sites)  have  repented  of  their  state  of  schism  from  the  Roman 
See  and  have  come  back  to  reunion.  These  are  the  Uniates,  who 
will  be  discussed  in  a  future  volume. 

All  the  people  of  this  volume  are  heretics  2  and  schismatics. 
These  are  harsh  words,  which  one  uses  unwillingly  of  pious  and 
God-fearing  Christians.  But  we  must  be  clear  on  this  point.  It 
is,  of  course,  true  inevitably  from  the  Catholic  point  of  view.  And 
they  too,  equally  logically  from  their  point  of  view,  say  that  we 
are  heretics  and  schismatics.  Indeed,  we  are  a  very  bad  kind  of 
heretic.  We  are  Creed-tamperers,  Papolaters,  gross  disturbers 
of  the  peace  by  our  shameless  way  of  sending  missionaries  who 
compass  the  land  and  the  sea  to  make  one  proselyte.  We  under- 
stand all  that,  and  like  them  the  better  for  being  consistent.     But 

1  There  will  be  a  short  appendix  about  the  Paulicians  at  the  end  of  the 
volume  on  the  Uniates. 

2  We  shall  see  in  each  case  how  far  they  can  be  accused  justly  of  keeping 
the  particular  heresies  of  their  origin.  In  any  case,  all  are  heretics  in  regard 
to  the  Primacy,  and  other  dogmas  too. 


OF   THESE   CHURCHES   IN   GENERAL  5 

they  should  also  understand  our  attitude  :  we  stand  for  our  own 
position,  on  either  side,  and  there  is  no  malice.  Secondly,  they 
are  equally  heretical  and  schismatical  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
Orthodox,  and,  with  the  qualifications  to  be  noted  hereafter,  each 
of  them  looks  upon  the  others  as  heretical  and  schismatical. 
There  is,  then,  theologically,  no  common  unity  between  these 
Churches,  except  as  much  as  exists  necessarily  among  all  Chris- 
tians. They  are  not,  theologically,  nearer  to  the  Orthodox  or  to 
each  other  than  they  are  to  the  Catholic  Church.  The  entire 
conversion  and  reunion  of  one  group  would  not  affect  the  others. 
Yet  there  are  some  points  in  which  all  together  do  form  one 
group.  Before  we  come  to  these  points  let  us  be  clear  about  who 
all  these  people  are.  It  is  not  difficult  to  grasp.  We  have  said 
that  all  are  either  Nestorian  or  Monophysite.  That  gives  us  at 
once  a  great  division  into  two  main  groups.  Theologically, 
these  groups  are  diametrically  opposed  to  each  other  ;  they  are 
poles  apart.  Nest  onanism  divides  Christ  into  two  persons, 
Monophysism  confuses  him  into  one  nature.  Each  feels,  or  ought 
to  feel  (for  it  is  a  question  how  far  these  old  controversies  are  now 
realized  by  any  of  them),  nearer  to  us  and  to  the  Orthodox  than 
to  the  other  main  group  :  and  each  accuses  us  (and  the  Orthodox) 
of  the  rival  heresy.  The  Nestorian  (at  any  rate  in  the  days  when 
these  were  burning  questions)  thought  us  to  be  practically 
Monophysites  ;  the  Monophysite  abhorred  our  theology  as  being 
infected  with  the  poison  of  Nestorius.  An  alliance  between  them 
against  us  (there  have  been  cases  of  something  like  it)  is  as 
curious  a  spectacle  as  the  alliance  of  Claverhouse  and  the 
Cameronians  in  Scotland  against  William  III. 

Our  first  group,  Nestorian,  now  contains  two  Churches.  First 
we  have  the  body  called  the  Nestorian  Church,  a  very  small  sect 
on  either  side  of  the  Turkish-Persian  frontier,  having  a  long 
and  glorious  history.  This  comes  naturally  first  in  our  account, 
as  being  the  oldest  existing  schismatical  Church.  It  once  had 
very  extensive  missions.  One  remnant  of  these  missions  remains 
along  the  south-western  (Malabar)  coast  of  India.  It  might 
seem  most  natural  to  place  the  Church  of  Malabar  immediately 
after  the  Nestorians,  as  belonging  to  them,  But  the  Malabar 
people  were  separated  for  many  centuries  from  their  Mother 


6  THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Church  ;  meanwhile,  by  an  astonishing  revulsion,  they  had  deal- 
ings with  Monophysites.  Now  (apart,  of  course,  from  the 
Uniates)  they  are  mostly  Monophysites.  So  it  seems  best  to 
leave  them  to  the  last,  as  a  kind  of  cross  between  both  groups. 
But  in  origin  they  are  Nestorian. 

We  come  to  the  second  group,  which  contains  all  the  others. 
All  lesser  Eastern  Churches  except  the  Nestorians  and  (originally) 
the  Malabar  people  x  are  Monophysites.  The  Monophysite  heresy 
was  a  much  greater  and  more  disastrous  thing  than  that  of 
Nestorius.  It  became  the  national  religion  of  Egypt  and  Syria, 
and  was  then,  apparently  rather  by  accident,  adopted  by  the 
Armenians.  So  we  have  three  great  Monophysite  Churches,  in 
Egypt,  Syria  and  Armenia.  To  these  we  must  add  a  fourth,  the 
Church  of  Abyssinia,  always  the  disciple  and  daughter  of  Egypt. 
These  four  complete  our  list  of  minor  schismatical  Eastern 
Churches.  In  Egypt  we  have  the  Copts.  They  come  first 
because  Egypt  was  the  original  and  always  the  chief  home  of 
the  heresy.  Next  we  place  the  daughter  Church  of  Egypt  in 
Abyssinia  or  Ethiopia.  Then  follows  the  Syrian  national  Church, 
commonly  called  Jacobite,  closely  allied  to  the  Copts.  To  them 
we  must  now  add  the  Malabar  Christians.  Lastly,  the  Armenians, 
whose  history  stands  rather  apart.  A  table  of  the  Churches 
described  in  this  book  will  make  their  position  and  mutual 
relation  clear  : 

Nestorian  :        The  Nestorian  Church. 

Originally  the  Church  of  Malabar. 
Monophysite  :  The  Coptic  Church  in  Egypt. 

The  Abyssinian  or  Ethiopic  Church. 

The  Jacobite  Church  in  Syria. 

Most  of  the  modern  Church  of  Malabar. 

The  Armenian  Church. 

The  next  point  to  justify  is  the  use  of  the  names  we  use  for 

these  sects.     In  some  cases,  at  any  rate,  the  body  in  question  is 

called  by  various  names  ;  it  is  well  to  be  clear  as  to  what  we  mean 

by  the  ones  we  use  and  why  we  prefer  them  to  others.     Now,  the 

1  Except  also;  obviously,  the  Uniates. 


OF   THESE   CHURCHES  IN   GENERAL  7 

first  general  principle  about  the  name  for  anything  at  all  is  to 
follow  common  use.  We  speak  in  order  to  be  understood.  A 
name  is  only  a  label ;  as  long  as  there  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  thing 
labelled,  it  does  not  much  matter  which  it  is.  Secondly,  no 
reasonable  man  wants  to  call  any  body  or  institution  by  a  gratui- 
tously offensive  name.  It  is  the  most  childish  idea  that  you  gain 
anything  merely  by  calling  people  ugly  names.  It  follows  then 
that,  whatever  you  may  think  about  an  institution,  you  should, 
as  a  general  rule,  call  it  by  its  own  name  for  itself.  This  becomes, 
of  course,  merely  a  technical  label ;  no  one  thinks  that  you  mean 
really  to  concede  what  the  name  may  imply. 

In  the  case  of  the  Churches  here  described  we  have  this  result : — 
The  Nestorians  must  be  so  called.  It  is  the  name  used  universally 
for  them  since  the  fifth  century.  They  do  not  resent  it  in  the 
least.  They  glory  in  the  memory  of  the  Blessed  Nestorius,  and 
they  use  it  for  themselves.1  A  fashion  is  growing  up  among 
their  Anglican  friends  of  avoiding  the  word  because  (it  is  alleged) 
they  do  not  really  hold  the  heresy  associated  with  Nestorius's  name, 
nor  were  they  founded  by  him.  As  for  the  heresy,  it  is  now  urged 
that  Nestorius  himself  did  not  teach  it ;  so  the  name  need  not  in 
any  case  connote  any  theory  about  our  Lord's  personality.  They 
do  not  admit  that  they  were  founded  by  Nestorius.  Of  course  not. 
They  claim  that  their  religion  was  founded  by  Jesus  Christ.  So 
do  all  Christians.  We  can  hardly  call  them  Christians  as  a 
special  name.  What  is  certain  is  that  they  went  into  schism, 
broke  with  the  rest  of  Christendom,  as  defenders  of  the  theory 
condemned  by  Ephesus.  And  what  other  name  are  we  to  use  ? 
Chaldee  will  not  do.  It  is  always  used  for  the  Uniates.  People 
have  tried  "  the  Persian  Church " ;  "  the  Turkish  Church " 
would  be  as  good.  Or  the  "East  Syrian  Church":  that  is 
better  ;  but  there  are  so  many  East  Syrian  Churches.  Jacobites, 
Orthodox,  Uniates  of  various  kinds,  all  abound  in  East  Syria, 
besides  this  one  little  sect.  The  favourite  name  now  among  their 
Anglican  sympathizers  seems  to  be  "  the  Assyrian  Church." 
This  is  the  worst  of  all.  They  are  Assyrians  in  no  possible  sense. 
They  live  in  one  corner  of  what  was  once  the  Assyrian  Empire. 
Their  land  was  also  once  covered  by  the  Babylonian  Empire. 

1  See  p.  128. 


8  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Why  not  "  the  Babylonian  Church  "  ?  As  for  descent,  who  can 
say  what  mixture  of  blood  there  is  in  any  of  the  inhabitants  of 
these  lands  ?  The  only  reason  for  giving  the  name  of  a  race  or 
a  nation  to  a  religious  body  is  that  the  religion  is  or  has  been  that 
of  the  race  or  nation.  The  Assyrian  Empire  came  to  an  end 
centuries  before  Christ.  No  doubt  the  Nestorians  have  some  of 
the  blood  of  its  old  subjects,  but  so  have  equally  all  the  other 
sects  which  abound  in  Mesopotamia.  Why  should  this  one  little 
sect  in  its  remote  corner  inherit  the  name  of  the  whole  mighty  and 
long- vanished  Empire  ?  And,  of  course,  "  Assyrian  Church  "  is 
emphatically  not  its  old,  accepted,  or  common  name.  It  is  a  new 
fad  of  a  handful  of  Anglicans.  One  sees  a  book  called  The 
Doctrinal  Position  of  the  Assyrian  Church,  and  one  wonders  what 
Church  can  be  meant — that  of  Asurbanipal  ? 

Since  we  shall  have  to  mention  the  Uniates  already  in  this 
book,  I  add  their  names  and  the  reason  thereof  at  once.  There 
is  a  Uniate  Church  corresponding  to  each  separated  one.  What 
are  we  to  call  the  Uniates  who  correspond  to  the  Nestorians  ? 
"  Catholic  Nestorians  "  would  be  too  absurd.  Of  course,  these 
people  are  Nestorians  in  no  possible  sense.  They  abhor  nothing 
so  much  as  the  impious  heresy  of  the  detestable  Nestorius, 
although  they  agree  in  rite  and  in  many  customs  with  their 
heretical  cousins.  Chaldee  and  Chaldcean  are  the  names  always 
used.  They  are  not  really  particularly  appropriate,  but  in  this 
case  we  have  the  clinching  reason  of  universal  use.  They  always 
call  themselves  so  ;  it  is  their  official  name  at  Rome.  If  you 
see  a  book  with  the  title  Missale  chaldaicum,  it  is  the  book  of 
their  liturgy ;  if  you  hear  of  the  "  Patriarcha  Babylonensis 
Chaldaeorum,"  it  is  their  Patriarch. 

The  general  name  Monophysite  will  not  be  disputed.  It  has 
constantly  been  used  by  Monophysites  themselves  ;  it  expresses 
exactly  their  particular  belief.  In  the  old  days  they  retorted 
by  calling  us  Dyophysites.  We  should  have  no  difficulty  in 
admitting  this  name,  were  there  any  need  for  a  new  one  for  us. 
We  are  Dyophysites  :  we  are  also  Dyotheletes  and  Monopro- 
sopians.  The  Copts  are  so  called  without  exception  by  friend 
and  foe.  The  name  is  probably  only  an  Arabic  form  of  "  Egyp- 
tian."    What  are  we  to  call  their  Uniates  ?     Uniate  Copts  is 


OF   THESE   CHURCHES   IN   GENERAL  9 

correct  and  harmless.  Only,  now — what  about  the  others  ? 
To  call  two  bodies  the  Copts  and  the  Uniate  Copts  is  not  good 
classification.  It  is  like  distinguishing  between  animals  and 
reasonable  animals.  To  make  our  terminology  accurate  we 
should  have  to  say  "  Monophysite  Copts  "  and  "  Uniate  (or 
Catholic)  Copts."  That  is  correct,  but  "  Monophysite  Copt  " 
is  rather  cumbersome  for  constant  use.  So  we  may  perhaps 
waive  the  point  of  logical  classification.  When  we  speak  of 
the  "  Copts,"  without  epithet,  everyone  will  understand  us 
as  meaning  members  of  the  national  (Monophysite)  Church  of 
Egypt.  Only  now  and  then,  when  we  want  specially  to  dis- 
tinguish them  from  the  Uniates,  we  will  add  "  Monophysite  "  or 
"  Schismatical."  The  Syrian  Monophysites  are  the  Jacobites. 
This  is  a  very  old  name,  from  James  fla/«o/3os,  Ya'kub) 
Baradai,  their  chief  founder.  They  do  not  appear  to  use 
it  themselves  ;  they  call  themselves  simply  "  Syrians "  or 
"  Syrian  Christians."  With  the  best  will  we  cannot  use  these  as 
their  technical  names.  But  all  the  people  round  call  them 
Jacobites  ;  so  in  this  case  we  must,  I  think,  use  that  name, 
apologizing  to  the  worthy  little  sect  if  it  hurts  their  feelings.  Their 
Uniates  are  Uniate  Syrians.  This  is  again  the  recognized 
official  name.  The  "  Patriarcha  Antiochenus  Syrorum"  is 
their  chief,  the  "  Ritus  Syro- Antiochenus,"  or  "  Syrus  purus  " 
their  rite.  The  name  Jacobite  is  sometimes  also  used  for  the 
Egyptian  Monophysites.1  There  is  no  objection  to  this,  except 
that  we  do  not  want  it  for  them  ;  "  Copt "  is  sufficient.  In  this 
book,  therefore  (as  commonly  in  all  books),  "Jacobite"  means  a 
Syrian  Monophysite. 

The  name  Armenian  Church  presents  no  difficulty:  it  is  the 
National  Church  of  that  race.  Uniate  Armenian  is  clear  enough  too. 
But  in  this  case  the  faulty  classification  is  less  innocent  than  that  of 
the  Copts.  The  Uniate  Copts  are  a  very  small  body.  The  Uniate 
Armenians  are  a  large,  flourishing  and  important  part  of  the 
nation.  Can  we  hand  over  the  title  "  Armenian  Church,"  without 
qualification,  to  their  adversaries  ?  Certainly  the  Uniate  would 
protest  that  his  Church  is  at  least  also  an  Armenian  Church  ;  he 
would  point  out  that  one  can  be  a  good  Armenian  without  being 
1  So  Joseph  Abudacnus  :  Historia  I acobitarum  seu  Coptorum  (Leiden,  1740). 


io  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

a  Monophysite.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  is  an  established 
epithet  for  the  separated  Armenians.  It  is  a  good  example  of 
what  has  been  said  about  technical  names.  To  distinguish 
them  from  the  Uniates  they  are  commonly  called  the  Gregorian 
Armenians.  This  patently  begs  the  whole  question,  as  far  as  the 
real  meaning  of  words  goes.  The  name  comes  from  St.  Gregory 
the  Illuminator,  the  honoured  apostle  of  Armenia.  Of  course,  the 
Uniates  claim  him  too,  and  with  reason.  St.  Gregory  was  not  a 
Monophysite,  he  was  certainly  in  union  with  Rome.  Yet,  since 
the  name  "  Gregorian  "  is  commonly  given  to  the  Monophysites, 
since  it  is  always  understood  as  meaning  them,  we  will  show  that 
we  are  sensible  people  by  using  it  of  them.  Plainly,  we  do  not 
admit  what  it  implies  ;  but,  once  more,  no  one  is  ever  expected 
to  admit  what  any  technical  name  implies.  We  have,  then,  the 
"  Gregorian  Armenian  Church  "  and  the  "  Uniate  Armenians." 
Abyssinia  and  Ethiopia  are  names  used  almost  indifferently 1  for 
the  country  south  of  Egypt  ruled  by  the  Negus.  There  is  no 
difficulty  about  the  name  of  his  Church.  It  is  the  religion  of 
practically  the  whole  nation  and  only  of  that  nation.  So  we 
speak  indifferently  of  the  Abyssinian  or  Ethiopic  Church.  For 
the  very  small  number  of  Uniates  here  Abyssinian  or  Ethiopic 
Uniate  will  suffice.  Malabar  (as  a  noun  or  adjective)  and  Malabar 
Uniate  are  obvious  names  too,  geographical  and  universally 
accepted.  The  people  themselves  have  a  legend  that  they  were 
founded  by  the  Apostle  St.  Thomas,  and  so  call  themselves 
Christians  of  St.  Thomas — harmless,  but  unnecessary,  since 
Malabar  is  enough. 

We  have  seen  that,  theologically,  there  is  no  unity  among 
these  sects.  On  the  other  hand,  from  the  point  of  view  of  Church 
history  and  archaeology,  all  Eastern  Churches,  including  the 
Orthodox,  have  something  in  common.  There  are,  namely, 
certain  ways  of  doing  things,  a  certain  general  attitude  of  mind, 
even  certain  ideas,  which  in  a  broad  sense  we  may  call  Eastern, 
common  to  all  these,  as  opposed  to  Western  customs  and  ideas.2 

1  But  see  p.  307. 

2  Just  as  there  are  many  more  and  far  more  important  customs  and  ideas 
common  to  all  Christians,  or  again  others  common  to  all  old  Churches  as 
opposed  to  those  of  Reformed  sects. 


OF   THESE   CHURCHES   IN   GENERAL        n 

The  mere  fact  that  they  are  all  opposed  to  the  Papacy  for  many 
centuries  and  have  no  inheritance  from  the  Reformation  of  the 
16th  century  is  a  negative  common  ground.  But  beyond  this 
the  Eastern  attitude  is  a  real  and  important  point  to  realize. 
It  applies  to  all  these  sects  as  much  as  to  the  Orthodox.  What  it 
comes  to  is,  first,  much  in  common  with  us  except  the  Papacy. 
All  have  very  definite  ideas  about  hierarchical  organization  and 
authority  ;  we  shall  hear  much  about  their  Patriarchs,  Katholikoi, 
Mafrians,  and  so  on.  All  have  a  fully  developed  sacramental 
system,  a  clear  idea  of  the  priesthood  and  eucharistic  sacrifice, 
elaborate  rites,  vestments,  and  ceremonies,  copious  incense, 
monasticism,  complicated  laws  of  fasting  and  celibacy,  saints — 
in  short,  what  we  may  call  the  visible,  organized  Church  idea. 
The  mere  minister  and  Gospel  preacher,  the  Bible  only,  Protestant 
ideas  of  Grace  and  Predestination,  all  this  is  as  strange  to  them  as 
to  us.  It  follows  that  all  Eastern  Churches  stand  much  nearer  to 
us  Catholics  than  does  any  Protestant  sect.  Most  of  the  dogmas  we 
have  to  explain  and  justify  to  Protestants  are  accepted  by  them 
as  a  matter  of  course.  Although  many  have  a  panic  fear  of  the 
Pope,  his  position  can  easily  be  explained  to  them.  They  have 
most  autocratic  Patriarchs  already  ;  they  have  only  to  add  the 
topmost  branch  to  their  idea  of  a  hierarchy.  What  the  Patriarch 
is  to  his  Metropolitans,  that  is  the  Pope  to  the  Patriarchs.  Even 
infallibility  can  be  no  great  stumbling-block  to  people  who  have 
a  very  definite  idea  of  an  infallible  Church,  of  which  Patriarchs 
are  the  authentic  mouthpiece.  They  do  not  admit  the  Im- 
maculate Conception  of  our  Lady,  because  the  Pope  has  defined 
it.  If  he  had  not  done  so,  they  probably  would.  Nestorians,  of 
course,  will  not  call  her  Mother  of  God.  But  they  have  unbounded 
veneration  for  the  all-holy,  most  pure  and  sinless  Virgin  ;  they 
keep  her  feasts,  and  their  liturgies  surpass  ours  in  glowing  praise 
of  her.  If  they  do  not  all  go  to  confession,  they  all  know  they 
ought  to.  All  venerate  relics  and  the  holy  cross  ;  most  have 
numerous  holy  pictures  in  their  churches. 

Then,  lastly,  there  are  many  points  in  which  they  agree  with 
the   Orthodox   rather   than   with  us.     Ferdinand   Kattenbusch 
goes  so  far  as  to  call  them  all  "  bye-churches  "  1  of  the  Orthodox. 
1  "  Nebenkirchen  "  (Lehrbuch  der  vergleichenden  Confessions kunde,  i.  205). 


12  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

That  is  perhaps  not  quite  fair  either  to  them  or  to  the  Orthodox. 
But  certainly,  in  many  ways,  of  the  two  great  Churches  they 
stand  nearer  to  Constantinople  than  to  Rome.  This  is  natural 
enough.  When  they  broke  away  they  left  the  Eastern  half  of 
Christendom.  The  "  Orthodox  "  Church  in  our  technical  sense 
did  not  yet  exist,  or  (if  one  likes)  the  Orthodox  were  then  Catholics. 
But  they  always  had  their  own  customs,  rites,  and  in  many 
points  their  own  ideas.  It  was  these  that  the  lesser  Eastern 
Churches  took  with  them.  And  since  then,  since  the  schism  of  the 
Orthodox,  that  Church  has  been  their  great  neighbour.  Rome  is 
far  away ;  most  Nestorians  and  Monophysites  have  been  too 
poor,  too  ignorant,  to  know  much  about  her.  The  great  rival  at 
hand  was  always  the  Church  of  the  Eastern  Empire.  Their 
relations  to  her  have  varied  considerably,  as  we  shall  see.  Some- 
times they  have  been  well  disposed  towards  her,  often  bitterly 
hostile.  But  her  influence  has  always  been  great.  And  in  one 
point  they  are  always  ready  to  join  her.  When  the  Orthodox 
fulminate  a  mighty  protest  against  the  horns  of  Roman  pride, 
when  they  protest  that  the  "  mad  Pope  makes  himself  equal  to 
God,"  then  they  sound  a  note  soothing  and  grateful  to  the  un- 
orthodox also.  So  there  is  a  common  Eastern  attitude  in  many 
ways.  The  liturgies  of  all  these  little  sects,  widely  different  as 
they  are,  have  a  certain  common  colouring  with  that  of  the 
Byzantine  Church.  A  Nestorian  would  be  very  much  puzzled  by 
either  the  Byzantine  Liturgy  or  the  Roman  Mass,  a  Copt  still 
more  ;  but  of  the  two  the  Byzantine  rite  would  seem  less  hope- 
lessly unintelligible.  The  vestments  of  all  these  sects  are  rather 
Byzantine  than  Roman.  Their  Calendars,  again,  various  as  they 
are,  are  nearer  to  that  of  the  Orthodox  than  to  ours.  Titles, 
ranks,  functions  of  all  kinds  can  generally  best  be  explained  by 
parallel  Orthodox  ones.  Their  theology  too.  All  these  Churches 
are  profoundly  affected  by  Greek  ideas,  by  the  Greek  Fathers  ; 
all  use  Greek  terms  in  their  various  languages  ;  all,  in  short,  come 
from  a  Greek  foundation.1  So  there  are  definite  points  of  theo- 
logy in  which  all  agree  with  the  Orthodox  against  us.  Besides 
the  questions  of  the  Papacy  and  the  Immaculate  Conception,  all 

1  Most  the  Copts,  Jacobites,  Armenians,  less  the  Nestorians  and  Abys- 
sinians — but  these  also,  as  we  shall  see. 


OF    THESE   CHURCHES   IN   GENERAL         13 

Eastern  schismatics  believe  in  consecration  by  the  Epiklesis  and 
reject  the  Filioque. 

We  come  to  a  great  question  which  one  would  like  to  clear  up 
at  once.  What  is  the  attitude  of  these  smaller  sects  as  to  the 
Church  of  Christ  ?  We  believe  that  this  is  necessarily  one  visibly 
united  body,  everywhere  holding  the  same  faith,  in  communion 
with  itself  always  and  everywhere.  So  do  the  Orthodox,  as  I 
have  shown.1  We  say  it  is  our  Church,  they  say  it  is  theirs.  But 
what  about  the  smaller  Eastern  sects  ?  Are  they  logical,  claim- 
ing each  to  be  the  whole  true  Church,  in  the  teeth  of  the  absurdity 
of  such  a  claim ;  or  do  they  admit  separated  sects,  teaching  different 
faiths,  as  making  up  one  Church  together  ?  Has,  in  fact,  the 
Branch  theory  adherents  in  the  Highlands  of  Kurdistan,  the 
Egyptian  desert  and  the  wilds  of  Abyssinia  ?  I  am  not  sure  ;  it 
is  a  difficult  point ;  but  I  believe  it  has.  In  the  first  place,  these 
rude  folk  have  probably  not  thought  much  about  the  question  at 
all ;  they  have  too  little  theology  of  any  kind  to  have  evolved  a 
clear  theory  about  the  unity  of  the  Church.  It  may  no  doubt  be 
said  safely  that  their  sects  have  no  dogmatic  position  as  to  this 
question,  except  that,  of  course,  in  any  case  they  themselves  are 
all  right.  Whoever  else  may  be,  they  are  members  of  the  true 
and  Apostolic  Church.  Otherwise,  it  is  a  matter  about  which 
each  member  will  form  his  own  opinion,  and  form  it  differently. 
I  know  one  case  of  an  Armenian  bishop  who  has  a  theory  of  juxta- 
position of  all  bishops  with  equal  rights,  co-ordination  not  sub- 
ordination, which  comes  to  very  much  the  same  thing  as  the 
famous  Branch  theory.2  But  the  others  ?  If  one  were  to  ask  a 
Nestorian,  Coptic,  Jacobite  bishop,  what  would  he  say  ?  One 
can  only  conjecture.  The  Monophysite  would  say  that  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon  taught  heresy,  that  all  who  accept  its  dogma 
are  heretics.     Could  he  admit  that  heretics  are  part  of  the  true 

1  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  pp.  365-372. 

2  See  Lord  Malachy  Ormanian  (ex-Armenian  Patriarch  of  Constan- 
tinople) :  L'Eglise  Armenienne  (Paris,  1910),  p.  86.  He  admits  "  every 
Church  which  acknowledges  the  dogmas  of  the  Trinity,  the  Incarnation,  and 
Redemption  "  as  part  of  the  universal  Church.  This  would  include  every 
kind  of  Protestant  sect — Quakers,  Christian  Scientists  and  Mormons.  He 
comes  up  against  the  fundamental  difficulty  of  all  branch  theories,  that 
no  one  can  tell  you  which  the  branches  are. 


14  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Church  ?  Surely  not.  Therefore,  the  only  real  and  authentic 
Church  of  Christ  on  earth  consists  of  the  Monophysite  bodies. 
It  follows  obviously.  So  (with  the  necessary  change)  if  one  asked 
a  Nestorian.  He  must  admit  that  we  are  heretics  ;  surely 
heretics  are  outside  the  Church  ?  And  yet  would  these  people 
really  have  the  courage  of  their  convictions  ?  It  would  be 
magnificently  consistent.  The  whole  and  only  true  Church  of 
God  is  that  poor  little  sect  in  Mesopotamia,  or  the  scattered  relics 
of  Monophysism  about  the  Levant— and  all  other  Christians 
heretics  wandering  in  outer  darkness  !  If  one  urged  them,  I 
doubt  if  they  would  boldly  take  their  stand  on  this  position. 
Probably  they  would  hedge  and  get  confused.  Their  sect  in  any 
case  would  be  entirely  right ;  as  for  the  others,  they  are  not  alto- 
gether wrong,  they  are  true  Churches  but  somewhat  corrupt,  not 
exactly  heretics,  or  at  any  rate  not  much  heretics.  We  should 
reform  away  our  errors,  but  meanwhile  we  are  parts  of  the 
universal  Church  ;  only,  it  is  sad  that  that  Church  is  so  griev- 
ously wounded  in  many  of  her  branches.  Such,  I  imagine,  would 
be  something  like  what  they  would  say.  It  is,  of  course,  all  a 
hopeless  tangle  and  a  confusion  beneath  contempt  ;  *  it  would 
show  that  they  have  never  considered  the  matter  seriously.  I 
feel  fairly  sure  they  have  not.  But  I  think  it  is  what  they  would 
say.2 

We  may,  then,  conceive  a  vague  class  of  Eastern  Churches  as  one 
group.  They  are  joined,  not  by  intercommunion,  nor  indeed  by 
any  really  important  theological  principle,  but  by  a  common 
attitude  in  certain  ways,  by  a  certain  common  outlook,  and  by 
a  common  descent  still  shown  in  many  points  of  ritual  and 
organization.  If  we  make  a  table  of  all  Christian  Churches  and 
sects,  its  arrangement  will,  naturally,  depend  on  the  basis  of  our 

1  Does  this  need  demonstration  ?  We  want  an  answer  to  two  plain 
questions  :  i.  Are  we  heretics  ?  (If  not,  then  your  special  dogmas  are 
not  part  of  the  faith  ;  so  why  do  you  insist  on  them  ?  Why  have  you 
broken  communion  with  us  for  their  sake  ?)  2.  Can  heretics  be  part  of 
the  true  Church  ?  (If  so,  then  what  do  you  mean  by  the  Church  ?  Where 
is  its  authority  to  teach,  etc.  ?) 

2  I  cannot  state  this  absolutely,  as  I  have  no  authentic  documents.  But 
such  things  have  been  said  to  me  in  conversation  by  clergy  of  these  sects. 
I  have  heard  them  in  England  too. 


OF   THESE   CHURCHES   IN   GENERAL         15 

classification.  According  as  we  divide  by  various  differences,  so 
shall  we  have  various  schemes  of  genus  and  species.  One  could 
of  course  make  the  Papacy  the  first  difference,  and  so  begin  by 
dividing  Christendom  into  Catholic  and  non-Catholic.  This  is 
theologically,  from  our  point  of  view,  the  vital  distinction  of  all, 
of  course.  We  should  then  subdivide  non-Catholic  Christendom 
into  Western  (Protestant)  and  Eastern,  and  e^xh  species  would 
have  many  further  divisions.  The  Catholic  species  might  also 
be  divided  into  Latins  and  Uniates,  these  last  with  subdivisions. 
But,  archaeologically  (and  this  is  the  point  of  view  of  this  book), 
another  system  suggests  itself,  according  to  what  has  been  said. 
Under  the  genus  Christian  we  put  first  two  main  species,  the  old 
Churches  (that  have  so  much  in  common,  in  spite  of  the  difference 
about  the  Pope) ,  and  the  Reformed  bodies  (different  in  many  vital 
ways  from  all  old  Churches).  We  need  not  go  into  the  sub- 
divisions of  the  Protestant  group.  The  old  Churches  then  fall 
into  the  species  Western  (Latin)  and  Eastern.  The  Eastern  are 
either  Byzantine  or  the  group  of  lesser  Eastern  Churches.  The 
Byzantines  are  Orthodox  or  Byzantine  Uniate ;  the  others  divide 
into  the  Churches  here  described,  each  again  subdivided  into 
Uniate  and  separated. 

Summary 

There  is  no  one  "Eastern  Church/'     Eastern  Christendom  is 
divided  into  three  main  groups  :     (1)   the  Orthodox  ;     (2)   the 
Nestorians  ;    (3)  the  Monophysites.     To  these  we  must  add  a 
second  main  division,  consisting  of  the  Catholics  (called  Uniates). 
The  Latins  in  the  East  and  the  various  small  Protestant  missions 
with  their  converts  do  not  form  Eastern  Churches.     They  are 
simply  foreign  bodies,  Westerns  now  dwelling  in  the  East.     Turn- 
ing back  to  our  first  three  groups  :  the  first  (the  Orthodox),  by  far 
the  largest  and  most  important  Eastern  Church,  has  been  dis- 
cussed in  the  former  volume.     The  second  group  (Nestorians) 
consists  of  one  historically  important  Church.     The  third  (Mono- 
physites)  has  four  national  Churches — the  Copts,  Abyssinians^- 
Jacobites,  and  Armenians,  and  now  most  of  the  Malabar  people.^ 
We  have,  further,  already  noted  some  general  points  about  these ' 
lesser  Eastern  Churches ;  especially  that,  although  in  no  sense 


16  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

united,  although  separated  by  extreme  divergencies  of  doctrine 
(so  that  theologically  one  group  is  much  nearer  to  us  than  it  is  to 
the  other),  nevertheless  there  is  a  general  Eastern  atmosphere 
about  them,  which  to  some  extent  justifies  us  in  putting  them  all 
together  in  a  rough  kind  of  class. 


CHAPTER   II 

THE   EAST   SYRIAN   CHURCH   BEFORE   NESTORIANISM 

The  traveller  who  passes  the  Turkish-Persian  frontier  near  Lake 
Urmi,  the  stranger  who  goes  to  delve  among  the  ruins  of  Nineveh, 
will  perhaps  wonder  to  find  in  these  parts  buildings  which  are 
plainly  Christian  churches.  Among  the  unhappy  non-Moslem 
population  of  these  parts  he  will  find  families  who  have  nothing 
to  do  with  either  Catholics  or  Orthodox,  but  who  honour  the  life- 
giving  Cross,  who  have  priests  and  bishops,  who  are  baptized  and 
go  to  Communion,  who  in  a  word  are  Christians.  Who  are  these 
people  ?  Some  new  sect  planted  in  these  wilds  by  Protestant 
missionaries  ?  No,  indeed  !  Long  centuries  before  Luther 
nailed  up  his  theses  these  people  worshipped  God  and  Christ  as 
they  still  do.  They  were  once  a  mighty  and  widespread  Church. 
The  predecessors  of  the  Patriarch  who  now  rules  a  few  families  in 
Kurdistan  ordained  bishops  for  India,  for  Herat,  for  Samarkand 
and  distant  China.  These  people  are  the  last  tragic  remnant  of  a 
Church  whose  history  is  as  glorious  as  any  in  Christendom.  Their 
line  goes  back  to  those  wonderful  missions  which  carried  the  name 
of  Christ  across  Asia,  to  the  great  army  of  martyrs  whose  blood 
hallowed  the  soil  of  Persia,  when  Shapur  II  was  the  Eastern 
Diocletian,  and  back  behind  that  to  the  mythic  dawn  when 
Addai  and  Mari  brought  the  good  news  from  the  plains  of  Galilee, 
when  Abgar  sent  letters  to  Jesus  the  good  Physician,  and  Hannan 
the  notary  painted  a  picture  of  the  holy  face.  These  people  are 
the  oldest  schismatical  Church  in  the  world.  Thay  have  stood 
in  their  pathetic  isolation  for  fifteen  centuries.  They  are  all  that 
is  left  of  the  once  mighty  Nestorian  Church. 

2 


18  THE   LESSER   EASTERN    CHURCHES 

i.  Political  History 

The  remote  beginning  of  our  story  is  to  be  found  not  far  from 
where  the  last  remnant  still  lingers — in  Mesopotamia,  along  the 
frontier  of  the  Roman  Empire  and  the  land  of  the  Persian  King 
of  Kings  ;  just  as  they  are  now  again  a  frontier  people,  where  the 
abominations  of  Turkish  governors  meet  the  vileness  of  their 
Persian  colleagues.  The  background  of  the  Nestorian  Church  is 
the  political  history  of  Mesopotamia  and  the  lands  around,  till 
they  become  the  national  Christian  Church  of  Persia.  Since  most 
people  have  rather  a  cloudy  idea  of  what  was  happening  in  these 
lands,  it  may  be  as  well  to  begin  with  an  outline  of  their  general 
history. 

Through  all  changes  the  people,  the  indigenous  population 
which  was  the  prey  of  the  two  great  Empires,  was  foreign  to  both. 
It  is  Semite.  Since  Aramaic  in  various  dialects  became  the 
common  language  of  Western  Asia  (roughly  since  the  second 
Babylonian  Empire)  they  have  talked  one  of  its  many  dialects. 
We  now  call  Aramaic  by  the  Greek  name  Syriac.  If  we  class 
people  by  the  inaccurate  but  convenient  test  of  the  language 
they  use,  we  shall  count  these  as  Syrians,  more  nearly  as  East 
Syrians.  In  the  period  with  which  we  have  to  deal  the  classical 
language  of  Mesopotamia  and  Syria  was  the  dialect  of  the 
city  of  Edessa,  from,  which  are  derived  those  of  the 
Eastern  and  Western  Syrians.1  This  Syrian  nationality  and 
language  remains  the  common  factor  through  all  political 
changes.  If  we  go  back  far  enough  we  find  the  remote 
ancestors  of  our  Nestorians  subject  to  the  first  Babylonian 
Empire  (b.c.  2500-1600),  disputed  by  Egypt  (they  seem  fated  to 
be  a  frontier  folk)  ;  then  they  were  absorbed  by  the  great  Assyrian 
power  (b.c.  900-600) ;  for  a  short  time  by  the  second  Babylonian 
Empire  (b.c.  600-550)  ;  then  by  Persia  under  Cyrus  (b.c.  550-331). 
But  all  this  is  still  remote  from  our  story.  The  conquests  of  Alex- 
ander the  Great  (b.c.  336-323)  introduce  an  important  new  element, 

1  With  slight  differences.  Three  Syriac  alphabets  are  used.  The  old 
form  is  called  Estvangela  (arpoyyvXr]).  From  this  are  derived  the  West 
Syrian  letters  (called  Serto  or  Jacobite),  and  the  East  Syrian  or  Nestorian 
characters.  Serto  is  most  commonly  used  in  books  printed  in  the  West, 
as  being  the  alphabet  of  the  best-known  community. 


THE   EAST  SYRIAN   CHURCH  19 

the  Greek  language  and  Greek  ideas.  From  his  time  Hellenism 
in  Asia  becomes  a  factor  to  be  counted.  He  and  the  generals  who 
divided  his  Empire  after  his  death  spoke,  of  course,  Greek.  Their 
courts  were  outposts  of  Hellenism  in  the  midst  of  barbarians. 
But  they  did  not  Hellenize  all  their  subjects.  The  native  popula- 
tions went  on,  after  another  change  of  masters,  much  as  before. 
Through  all  Eastern  history,  behind  the  battles  and  triumphs, 
behind  intrigues  at  court,  embassies,  alliances,  treachery,  you 
see  dimly  a  vast  patient  crowd,  silent  and  unchanging  while  kings 
clamour  and  fight.  These  are  the  great  mass  of  the  people.  You 
figure  them  like  flocks  of  sheep,  driven  by  first  one  shepherd  and 
then  another,  harried  by  taxes,  forced  to  build  palaces  and  serve 
in  armies  against  other  flocks  (against  whom  they  have  no  quarrel)  ; 
yet  all  the  time  keeping  their  own  languages,  customs,  religions, 
not  really  changed  at  all  by  the  fact  that,  after  half  their  villages 
have  been  burned,  their  men  murdered  and  their  women  ravished, 
they  have  to  pay  taxes  to  a  tyrant  in  the  far  West  instead  of  to 
one  in  the  far  East.  Provinces  are  handed  to  and  fro ;  on  our 
maps  we  colour  vast  districts  red  or  green  or  yellow,  according  as 
they  form  part  of  Assyria,  Persia,  or  Rome.  They  do  not  care. 
They  lead  their  unknown  life,  follow  their  own  immemorial 
customs,  while  far  above  over  their  heads  empires  crash  together 
and  shatter.  To  a  child  of  the  people  the  only  law  is  the  custom 
of  his  tribe,  the  only  authority  the  village  headman  and  village 
priest.  What  does  it  matter  to  him  whether  the  booty  torn  from 
his  people's  fields  is  sent  West  to  Rome  or  East  to  Persia ;  whether 
the  soldiers  he  eyes  with  terror  as  they  plunder  his  home,  march 
under  the  eagles  of  Rome  or  the  equally  strange  standard  of  the 
Great  King  ?  Admirably  is  all  this  expressed  by  the  Arabic 
name  for  subject  races,  ray  ah.1  We  must  understand  this, 
because  most  of  all  in  the  East  political  divisions  are  no  clue 
to  race.  The  people  we  have  to  study  are  not  Assyrians,  nor 
Greeks,  nor  Persians,  Egyptians,  Romans.  They  have  been 
bandied  about  between  all  these  powers.  All  the  time  they 
remain  just  the  same  Semitic  Syriac-speaking  native  population 
of  Mesopotamia  and  Eastern  Syria.  Nearer  than  that  one  cannot 
go  in  defining  their  race.  Practically  a  real  bond  is  their  language ; 
1  Ra'iyah,  pi.  ra'did,  a  flock,  from  ra'a,  pascere. 


20  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

another  equally  real  one  all  over  the  East  is  religion.  It  seems  an 
odd  criterion  by  which  to  measure  races  ;  yet,  for  practical 
purposes,  the  bond  of  Church  membership  is  perhaps  the  nearest 
thing  they  have  to  our  idea  of  race  or  nation.  The  Turk  is  not 
altogether  wrong  in  considering  each  sect  asa"  nation."  l 

After  Alexander,  then,  we  have  outposts  of  Greek  civilization 
and  language  thinly  scattered  among  the  native  population. 
These  are,  of  course,  only  small  centres — a  Greek  court,  a  more 
or  less  Greek-speaking  city,  amid  vast  territories  where  all  the 
peasants  are  barbarians.  It  is  the  same  in  Syria  and  Egypt.  We 
shall  understand  the  situation  best  by  thinking  of  the  little  colonies 
of  English  amid  the  millions  of  natives  in  India.  Moreover,  just 
as  we  have  taught  many  of  the  more  educated  natives  to  talk 
English,  as  we  use  English  influence  on  the  upper  classes,  whereas 
the  crowded  millions  below  remain  unchanged ;  so  many  Syrians 
in  towns  learned  to  talk  Greek,  and  Greek  ideas  filtered  into  their 
life,  although  the  great  mass  of  the  people  went  on  speaking  their 
own  language,  worshipping  their  own  gods,  hardly  touched  by  the 
aristocratic  foreign  element.  But  we  must  note  too  that  even 
this  partial  Hellenization  took  place  practically  only  in  Western 
Syria.  Of  Alexander's  generals,  Seleukos  Nikator  (b.c.  312-281) 
inherited  Syria  and  the  East.  He  founded  the  Seleucid  dynasty 
of  Greek  sovereigns,  who  reigned  till  B.C.  64.  At  first  he  set  up 
his  capital  at  Seleucia  on  the  Tigris,  opposite  to  which  (on  the  left 
bank)  later  the  city  of  Ctesiphon  arose.  But  the  capital  was  soon 
moved  to  Antioch  on  the  Orontes.2  Antioch  then  became  the 
chief  centre  of  Hellenism  in  Syria.  The  Eastern  part,  with  which 
we  are  concerned,  was  hardly  affected  by  Greeks  at  all.  However, 
Greek,  in  a  later  form  of  the  language,  the  kolvtj  that  we  know  best 
in  the  New  Testament,  became  the  recognized  international 
language  among  educated  people  throughout  the  East  Mediter- 
ranean lands.  Of  the  Seleucid  kings  the  most  famous — or 
infamous — is  Antiochos  IV,  Epiphanes  (175-164),  against  whom 
the  Maccabees  fought.  During  the  reign  of  the  third  Seleucid 
king  (Antiochos  II,  261-246)  a  new  monarchy  arose  in  the  East 
which  deprived  their  empire  of  Persia  and  brought  a  disputed 

1  Millah  (pron.  millet),  pi.  milal. 

2  Called  after  his  son  Antiochos  Soter  (2 8 1  -2 61),  as  Seleucia  was  after  him. 


THE   EAST  SYRIAN   CHURCH  21 

and  shifting  frontier  again  to  Mesopotamia.  This  is  the  Second 
Persian  Empire,  that  of  the  Parthians.  The  Parthians  were  an 
Aryan  race,  followers  of  the  old  religion  of  Persia  (Mazdaeism), 
dwelling  north-east  of  Persia  proper,  under  the  Caspian  Sea  and 
so  towards  the  Himalaya.  They  are  really  another  tribe  of 
Persians  ;  their  monarchy  represents  practically  a  revival  of  that 
of  Cyrus.  Two  brothers,  Arsaces  and  Tiridates,  were  their 
chiefs  in  the  third  century  B.C.  These  rose  against  the  Seleucids  ; 
in  B.C.  250  Arsaces  became  king  of  the  Parthian  state.  They  had 
many  great  rulers  (notably  Mithradates  I,1  B.C.  175-138)  who 
waged  successful  war  against  the  Seleucids  and  then  carried  on 
the  eternal  contest  of  East  and  West  against  Rome.  For  already 
Rome  has  entered  the  arena.  Since  200  B.C.  she  becomes  more 
and  more  a  factor  in  Eastern  history.  In  205  B.C.  the  Romans 
defeat  Philip  V  of  Macedonia  ;  this  marks  their  first  appearance 
on  the  stage  they  are  soon  to  fill.  At  first  Rome  is  only  con- 
cerned to  prevent  any  Eastern  kingdom  from  becoming  too 
powerful  a  neighbour.  Antiochos  the  Great  of  Syria  (Antiochos 
III,  B.C.  223-187)  wanted  to  assert  supremacy  over  Greece,  and 
had  interests  in  Egypt.  Rome  opposed  him  in  both.  In  191  he 
was  beaten  and  driven  out  of  Greece  ;  in  190  Lucius  Cornelius 
Scipio  crossed  over  to  Asia  Minor  and  won  the  battle  of  Magnesia. 
Antiochos  had  to  resign  all  his  possessions  in  Asia  Minor.  They 
were  at  first  given  to  a  Roman  ally,  the  King  of  Pergamon  ;  but 
in  133  B.C.  they  became  the  Roman  province  "  Asia."  From 
now  the  Seleucid  kingdom  gradually  goes  to  pieces  and  the  Roman 
Empire  takes  its  place.  Antiochos  IV's  attempt  to  Hellenize  all 
Syria  (of  which  the  Maccabeean  revolt  was  an  incident)  was  a  bad 
failure.  Then  comes  a  long  series  of  disputed  successions  to  the 
throne  and  civil  wars,  in  which  Rome  is  more  and  more  concerned. 
For  a  time  (b.c.  86-66)  Syria  became  a  dependency  of  Armenia 
(P-  385).  But  the  ever-advancing  Roman  power  defeated  the 
Armenians,  and  so  at  last  the  inevitable  happened  :  Pompey  with 
his  legions  entered  Syria,  the  last  Seleucid  king  (Antiochos  XIII) 
was  deposed,  and  Syria  became  a  Roman  province  (b.c.  64).  So 
we  arrive  at  the  state  of  things  when  Christianity  appears  in  these 
lands.     Rome  faces  the  Parthian  kingdom.     Rome  has  taken  up 

1  Mithradates  I  is  also  Arsaces  VI. 


22  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

the  old  contest  for  the  West ;  from  now  for  seven  centuries  (till 
the  Moslems  come  in  634  a.d.)  East  Syria  is  the  frontier  and  the 
battle-ground  of  Rome  and  Persia. 

But,  meanwhile,  between  these  two  mighty  Empires  there  is 
the  Syrian  desert,  where  tribes  of  Bedawin  wander.  These  desert 
folk  kept  a  kind  of  independence  and  constantly  gave  trouble  to 
their  neighbours.  At  various  times  they  have  formed  independ- 
ent states.  So  Palmyra  (Tadmur)  in  an  oasis  between  Damascus 
and  the  Euphrates  (c.  230-272),  Ituraea  in  the  Lebanon,  the 
Nabataan  kingdom  south-east  of  Palestine,  etc.  One  of  these 
native  states  is  important  to  us. 

East  of  the  Euphrates  in  the  north  of  Mesopotamia  stands  a 
J  very  old  city  called  Urhai.  The  Greeks  had  refounded  it  and 
)  given  it  the  name  Edessa.  It  is  placed  on  a  great  caravan  route 
which  passes  between  the  Armenian  mountains  and  the  great 
desert  to  the  south.  Here  native  princes  managed  to  found  a 
kingdom  (Urhai,  Hellenized  as  Osroene  x)  since  about  136  B.C. 
The  kingdom  of  Osroene  remained  the  one  centre  of  national 
Syrian  independence  between  the  Greek  Seleucids  (or,  later, 
Rome)  and  Persia.  It  was  also,  as  we  shall  see,  the  centre  of 
national  Syrian  Christendom.  There  was  nothing  Greek,  no 
Hellenization,  at  Edessa.  The  people  spoke  only  Syriac,2  the 
Kings  of  Osroene  were  native  Syrians.  Of  this  dynasty  of  kings 
most  were  named  either  Abgar 3  or  Ma'nu.4  The  religion  of 
Osroene  was  that  of  the  pagan  Semites  generally — worship  of  the 
host  of  heaven  (stars,  sun,  and  moon)  in  general.    There  appears 

1  Urhai  is  supposed  to  come  from  the  name  of  a  founder  of  the  city.  The 
Arabs  make  ar-ruhd  of  this,  Greeks  'Opporjvf],  then  'Oaporjvn.  Edessa 
("ESkarra)  is  a  different  word.  Osroene  remains  the  usual  name  of  the 
kingdom,  Edessa  (in  Greek,  Latin,  and  European  languages)  of  the  city. 
The  city  in  Turkish  (and  common  modern  use)  is  now  Urfa.  It  is  now 
mainly  Turkish-speaking  and  Moslem  ;  there  are  a  large  Armenian,  a 
small  Jacobite,  and  a  Syrian  Uniate  community.  An  account  of  the 
present  state  of  the  place  will  be  found  in  Badger  :  The  Nestorians  and 
their  Rituals,  i.  321-333.  He  thinks  Urhai  is  Ur  of  the  Chaldees.  One 
of  the  Armenian  massacres  in  1896  was  here  (see  Sir  E.  Pears  :  Turkey  and 
its  People,  London,  Methuen,  191 1,  pp.  285-289). 

2  Indeed,  the  dialect  of  Edessa  became  the  classical  Syriac  language. 

3  Either  from  the  Syrian  root  bgar,  to  shut,  hinder,  belame,  or  Armenian 
Apghar  =  apagh  ahr,  a  prince. 

*  Arabic  root  ma' an,  to  assert,  consider,  be  useful,  etc. 


THE   EAST  SYRIAN   CHURCH  23 

to  have  been  a  special  local  cult  of  the  Heavenly  Twins.1  A 
small  native  kingdom  had  little  chance  of  keeping  its  independence 
between  such  neighbours  as  Rome  and  Persia.  When  Trajan 
(98-117)  was  fighting  Persia  the  Romans  stormed  and  sacked 
Edessa  (in  116).  It  held  out  after  that  for  another  century. 
Rome  asserted  a  kind  of  suzerainty  over  the  little  frontier  state, 
which  Osroene  did  not  obey ;  so  in  216  Abgar  IX,  the  last  king, 
was  sent  in  chains  to  Rome.  Osroene  became  a  Roman  province 
and  the  Empire  established  itself  on  the  other  side  of  the  Eu- 
phrates.2   The  kingdom  had  lasted  about  three  centuries. 

The  first  centuries  of  the  Roman  occupation  of  Syria  were 
certainly  the  happiest  period  in  the  long  history  of  that  much-tried 
people.  They  have  obeyed  in  turn  Babylon,  Egypt,  Assyria, 
Persia,  Greeks,  Rome,  and  then  Arabs  and  Turks.  During  all  these 
centuries  of  subjection  never  were  they  so  well  ruled,  never  did 
their  chains  hang  so  lightly,  as  under  Rome.  Even  to-day  the  land 
is  covered  with  splendid  ruins  of  cities  and  temples,  witnesses 
of  the  one  bright  period  of  Syrian  history :  from  Ba'albek  to 
Mosul  you  may  read  Latin  inscriptions  and  see  relics  of  the 
Roman  rule. 

The  Parthian  kings  carried  on  the  old  quarrel  against  the  West ; 
there  was  fignting  all  down  Mesopotamia.  The  Parthians  were 
half-Hellenized  ;  easygoing  and  tolerant,  they  had  not  behind 
them  the  full  force  of  Persian  loyalty.  In  the  third  century  after 
Christ  their  place  was  taken  by  a  fiercer  foe  to  Rome.  Ardashir 
son  of  PabSk,  Satrap  of  Iran,  rose  against  the  Parthian  king 
(Artaban),  slew  him  at  Hormuz  on  May  28,  227,  and  gathered  up 
his  inheritance.  Ardashir  3  (of  the  house  of  Sassan)  founded  a 
monarchy  which  was  a  closer  revival  of  that  of  Cyrus  and  Darius. 
From  him  came  the  Sassanid  kings,  who  reigned  for  four  centuries. 
Their  rule  was  pure  Persian  ;  their  ideal  was  to  restore  Iran  as  it 
had  been  before  Alexander.  One  result  of  this  was  a  revival 
of  the  old  Persian  national  faith.  The  religion  of  Persia  was 
dualism.     All  the  universe  is  a  battle-ground  between  the  good 

1  The  stars  Castor  and  Pollux.  These  are  represented  on  their  coins. 
Burkitt  :   Early  Eastern  Christianity ,  p.  17. 

2  See  Gibbon  :  Decline  and  Fall,  chap.  viii.  (ed.  Bury  1897,  v°l-  h 
pp.  207-208). 

3  Greek  Artaxerxes. 


24  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

god  Ahura  Mazda  and  the  bad  god  Anra  Mainyu.1  All  nature 
is  divided  between  their  respective  clients  ;  the  dog,  for  instance, 
is  a  champion  of  Ahura  Mazda,  the  frog  of  Anra  Mainyu.  Man 
has  to  fight  for  the  good  god  against  the  bad  one.  Each  has 
a  court,  as  an  Eastern  king  might  have.  The  seven  Amesha 
Spentas  (Holy  Immortals),  like  archangels,  fight  for  Ahura; 
seven  evil  spirits  oppose  them  in  the  service  of  Anra  Mainyu.  The 
symbol  of  Ahura  Mazda,  the  most  sacred  thing  visible,  is  the  Sun 
and  fire.  There  is  a  hierarchy  of  priests  called  mobeds,  under 
their  chief,  the  mobedan  mobed  ;  in  their  temples  they  keep  alive 
the  sacred  fire,  symbol  of  Ahura's  reign  of  light.  What  are  we 
to  call  this  religion  ?  It  is  very  old,  developed  out  of  the  original 
Aryan  mythology,  of  which  Brahmanism  is  another,  a  baser 
development.  When  the  Aryans  poured  into  the  plains  of 
Persia,  already  they  brought  with  them  at  least  the  germ  of  this 
faith.  It  was  organized,  reformed  (in  no  sense  founded),  by 
Zarathushtra.'2  But  to  call  it  Zoroastrianism  is  as  bad  as  to  call 
Islam  Mohammedanism,  or  worse.  The  small  communities  who 
still  hold  this  old  religion  in  India  are  called  Parsis  (which  means 
simply  Persians),  in  Persia  "  Gebers  "  (which  is  an  insulting 
nickname  used  by  Moslems).3  "  Fire-worshippers,"  too,  is  an 
offensive  name,  which  they  repudiate  indignantly.  According  to 
our  general  principle, one  would  like  to  call  them  by  their  own  name 
for  themselves.  But  they  have  none.  They  call  their  cult  "  the 
good  religion  of  Ahura  Mazda  "  ;  they  call  themselves  often 
yazdan  parast  (worshipper  of  God).  All  things  considered, 
"  Mazdseism  "  and  "  Mazdaean,"  from  the  name  of  their  god,  seems 
the  most  reasonable.  But  we  may  notice  that  Zoroastrian,  Parsi, 
Geber  (guebre),  Magian,  Fire-worshipper,  all  mean  the  same 
thing.  I  add  only  one  or  two  more  points  about  Mazdaeism  which 
cccur  in  connection  with  our  story.  It  has  most  elaborate 
principles  of  ritual  cleanness  and  defilement.     The  mobed  wears 

1  In  later  Persian  Ormuzd  and  Ahriman.  Ahura  Mazda  =  Wise  Lord, 
Anra  Mainyu  =  Evil  Spirit. 

2  Now  Zerdusht  ;  Greek  Zoroaster.  He  was  undoubtedly  a  real  person. 
See  A.  V.  Williams  Jackson  :  Zoroaster,  the  Prophet  of  Ancient  Iran,  New 
York,  1899. 

3  Either  =  Kafir  (infidel)  or  Habdr  (wizard)  ;  perhaps  Persian  Gabrd 
(  —  Aramaic  Gebar,  a  man). 


THE  EAST  SYRIAN   CHURCH  25 

a  mouth-covering  when  he  tends  the  holy  fire,  lest  his  breath 
defile  it.  Especially  are  death  and  a  dead  body  unclean.  A 
corpse  may  not  defile  earth,  fire  nor  water.  So,  as  everyone 
knows,  Mazdseans  put  dead  bodies  on  their  Towers  of  Silence,  to 
be  eaten  by  vultures.  Burial,  and  still  more  cremation,  are 
horrible  to  them.  They  have  also  a  great  aversion  to  any  kind  of 
asceticism.  Life  and  pleasure  are  gifts  of  Ahura  Mazda  ;  not  to 
enjoy  them  is  positively  sinful:  it  is  perhaps  the  only  religion 
which  considers  fasting  actually  wicked.  They  hate  celibacy. 
Their  sexual  morality  is  correct,  save  for  one  extraordinary  point  : 
they  allow,  even  command,  incest,  and  may  (often  did)  marry  their 
own  sisters.1 

This  religion,  then,  under  the  Sassanid  kings  was  the  state 
religion  of  the  Persian  kingdom.  It  had  not  died  out  under  the 
Parthians  ;  but  it  was  now  more  closely  identified  with  Persian 
nationality,  and  became  intolerant  and  persecuting.  It  was 
death  to  apostatize  from  it ;  the  mobeds  continually  stirred  up 
fierce  persecution  against  other  religions,  so  that,  as  we  shall  see, 
Christians  in  Persia  suffered  even  more  than  under  Pagan  Rome. 
But  Mazda^ism  was  not  the  one  cult  of  all  the  Great  King's 
possessions.  Its  home  was  among  the  Aryans  of  Old  Persia,  down 
by  the  Gulf.  Among  the  subject  Semites  other  cults,  the  last 
remnants  of  Babylonian  mythology,  still  lingered.  The  first 
pagans  whom  Christianity  met  in  Mesopotamia  and  Adiabene  2 
were  not  Mazdaeans  but  polytheists,  worshipping  Nature-forces, 
wells  and  trees. 

We  have  said  that  the  Sassanid  kings  took  up  the  old  quarrel 
against  Rome.  During  nearly  all  their  time  war  rages  along  the 
frontier,  with  varying  success.  But  they  brought  new  energy 
to  their  side,  so  that  on  the  whole  the  advantage  seems  to  be  with 
them.     Julian    (361-363)    died    fighting   the    Persians    (against 

1  A  good  short  modern  account  of  Mazdaeism  is  V.  Henry  :  Le  Parsisme, 
Paris,  1905  (Les  religions  des  peuples  civilizes).  The  modern  Parsi  resents 
being  called  a  dualist,  and  maintains  that  his  religion  has  always  been  pure 
monotheism.  Ahura  Mazda  is  simply  the  old  Persian  name  of  God.  Anra 
Mainyu  is  no  more  a  rival  bad  god  than  our  devil.  This  is  modern  puri- 
fication under  Christian  influence.  The  Brahmin  too  now  says  he  is  a 
monotheist.  But  there  seems  to  have  been  always  the  idea  of  a  final  triumph 
of  Ahura  Mazda. 

2  Hadyab,  the  country  between  the  Tigris  and  the  Zab. 


26  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Shapur  II)  ;  his  successor  Jovian  (363-364)  had  to  conclude  a 
disgraceful  peace,  giving  up  Nisibis  and  all  the  provinces  beyond 
the  Tigris  (363).  There  were,  of  course,  intervals,  sometimes 
long  intervals,  of  peace,  during  which  the  Emperor  sent  friendly 
embassies  to  his  brother  the   King  of   Kings.     But,   speaking 

\  generally,  the  background  of  the  story  of  Eastern  Christianity 
A  during  the  first  five  or  six  centuries  is  this  eternal  struggle  between 

I  Rome  and  Persia  ;  behind  our  theological  discussions,  synods 
and  bishops,  we  see  tramping  legions  and  flames  of  burning 
cities.  It  might  have  gone  on  indefinitely.  Would  either  power 
ever  have  worn  the  other  out  ?  Each  had  worn  itself  out 
when,  in  the  7th  century,  a  new  factor  entered  the  scene  and 
swept  them  both  away.  Mohammed  died  in  632.  Almost  im- 
mediately his  followers  burst  upon  the  Roman  Empire  in  Syria 
and  Persia.  Khalid  *  led  a  Moslem  army  against  Hlra,  an  Arab 
state  dependent  on  Persia ;  then  under  Sa'ad  Ibn  Wakkas  they 
conquered  Chaldea  and  Mesopotamia  ;  ten  years  later  at  Neha- 
wand  they  won  the  "  Victory  of  Victories  "  which  made  them 
masters  of  all  Persia  (642).  The  last  Sassanid  king  (Yazdagird 
III,  632-651)  fled  and  was  murdered  by  wild  Turks  ;  the  Khalif's 
power  was  established  in  Iran  and  spread  to  the  land  beyond  the 
Oxus.  Meanwhile,  with  equal  success  the  Arabs  were  tearing 
provinces  from  Rome.  In  634  they  invaded  Western  Syria. 
They  took  Bosra,  then  defeated  the  Roman  army  at  Ajnadain 
(July  30,  634) .  At  Yarmuk  the  Romans  again  suffered  a  crushing 
defeat  (Aug.  23,  634).  Damascus  fell  in  635,  and  Emesa  the  next 
year  (636).  In  637  Omar,  the  second  Khalif,  entered  Jerusalem  ; 
in  638  Aleppo  and  Antioch  were  taken.2  So  from  now  the 
situation  changes.  The  old  quarrel  of  Rome  and  Persia  has  come 
to  an  end,  the  people  so  long  bandied  about  between  different 
masters  are  new  ruled  by  the  Moslem  Khalif.  After  the  Arab 
conquest  there  is  little  more  political  history  to  tell.  Till  750  the 
Khalifs  of  the  house  of  'Umaiyah  reigned  at  Damascus  ;  then 
they  were  succeeded  by  the  long  line  of  Abbas  at  Bagdad.3    This 

1  Halid  Ibn  Walid. 

2  The  Moslems  conquered  Egypt  in  639. 

3  Bagdad  on  the  Tigris,  just   north   of   Ctesiphon,  was  chosen  as  his 
capital  by  'Abdullah  al-Mansiir,  the  second  Abbasside  Khalif  (754-775)  • 


THE   EAST  SYRIAN   CHURCH  27 

line  reigned  there  till  1258.  Meanwhile  the  Turks  had  already 
appeared.  The  Turks  are  a  Turanian  people  who  came  from 
Central  Asia  beyond  the  Oxus.  Already  in  710  the  Arabs  had 
pushed  their  conquests  into  this  country  and  had  begun  to  make 
converts  there.  Throughout  their  history  the  Turks  are  Moslems, 
pupils  of  the  Arabs  in  religion,  custom,  and  everything.1 
There  are  many  tribes  of  Turks.  The  civil-spoken  gentlemen  at 
Constantinople  who  wear  French  clothes  and  read  French  news- 
papers have  wild  and  shaggy  cousins  who  guard  their  flocks  in 
Central  Asia.  The  first  on  the  scene  are  the  Seljuk  Turks.  They 
begin  to  attack  the  Roman  Empire  in  the  nth  century.  Their 
Sultan  2  Alp-Arslan  invaded  Asia  Minor  and  took  the  Emperor 
Romanos  prisoner  in  1071.  In  1092  Nicaea  (Isnik)  became  the 
capital  of  a  Seljuk  kingdom  covering  Asia  Minor  and  Palestine. 
Theoretically  the  Turks  acknowledged  the  Khalif  at  Bagdad  as 
their  overlord  ;  practically,  the  centre  of  gravity  of  Islam  shifts 
from  the  weak  titular  ruler  to  the  Turkish  Sultan.  It  was  against 
the  Seljuk  Turks  that  the  Crusaders  fought.3  The  Khalif  had 
a  Turkish  bodyguard  ;  already  the  way  was  open  for  them  to 
seize  whatever  shadow  of  authority  was  left  to  him.  Then  in  the 
13th  century  a  frightful  storm  burst  over  both.  The  Tatars 
under  Jengiz  Khan,4  "  the  scourge  of  God,"  burst  over  Asia, 
carrying  havoc  into  China,  Persia,  Europe  and  Syria.  In  1258 
they  sacked  Bagdad  and  killed  the  last  Abbassid  Khalif,  Mus- 
ta'asim.5  Just  at  the  same  time  the  Osmanli  Turks  make  their 
appearance  ;  when  the  Tatar  storm  had  passed  they  remain  in 
possession  of  Syria,  invade  Europe,  and  found  the  Empire  of 

1  A  good  parallel  is  that  of  the  Franks  in  Western  Europe,  who  learned 
everything  from  Rome,  and  finally  became  the  successors  and  representa- 
tives of  the  Roman  Empire. 

2  Sultan,  a  king  (Ar.  salat,  to  rule).  This  was  at  first  an  inferior  title, 
granted  to  the  Turkish  chieftains  by  the  Khalif  at  Bagdad  (like  Amir) . 

3  At  first.     Later  the  independent  Amirs  of  Egypt  enter  the  lists. 

4  Han  is  a  Persian  word,  again  meaning  Lord,  Prince.  It  is  one  of  the 
titles  of  the  Sultan  now. 

5  Abu  Ahmad  'Abdullah,  al-Musta'asim  billah  ("  protected  by  God,"  1242- 
1258).  An  alleged  son  of  the  house  of  Abbas  fled  to  Egypt  and  continued 
the  line  of  titular  Khalifs  there.  Sultan  Selim  II  (the  Drunkard,  1566-1574), 
who  lost  the  battle  of  Lepanto  (1571),  forced  the  last  of  this  line  to  cede  his 
rights  to  him.  On  this  totally  illegal  bargain  is  based  the  Turkish  Sultan's 
claim  to  be  Khalif. 


28  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

which  they  still  hold  fragments.  We  need  now  only  add  that 
Persia  became  an  independent  state  in  1499.  It  had  gone  through 
many  vicissitudes  already,  and  had  suffered  cruelly  from  the 
Tatars.  Meanwhile,  the  Persians,  now  all  Moslems,  except  for  a 
poor  remnant  of  persecuted  Mazdaeans  and  the  (Syrian)  Christian 
Church,  had  evolved  a  Moslem  heresy  of  their  own  which  ex- 
pressed their  national  feeling.  The  religion  of  Persia  was  Islam 
in  the  Shiah  1  form.  In  1499  a  certain  Ismail  founded  an  in- 
dependent Persian  Shiah  state,  hating  and  continually  fighting 
the  Sunni 2  Turks.  That  state  still  exists,  though  now  under  a 
foreign  dynasty,  the  Khajars,  founded  by  Aga  Mohammed  Khan 
in  1794. 

This  brings  us  to  the  end  of  the  political  history  of  these  parts. 
It  forms  the  background  of  all  our  further  story  ;  it  is  well  to  keep 
in  mind  who  were  the  successive  rulers  of  the  Christians  with 
whom  we  are  now  concerned. 


2.  The  Church  of  Edessa 

There  was,  of  course,  no  Nestorian  Church  before  Nestorius 
(428-431).  However,  as  we  shall  see,  the  people  who  took  up  his 
cause  and  went  into  schism  for  it  were  the  extreme  Eastern 
Church  round  about  Edessa  and  in  Persia.  Before  his  time  the 
causes  of  their  separation  had  already  begun  to  work.  Moreover, 
most  of  the  special  characteristics  of  the  later  Nestorian  sect  are 
really  pre-Nestorian  ;  its  liturgy,  customs,  much  of  its  canon 
law,  and  so  on,  come  from  its  old  Catholic  days.  The  history  of 
this  most  Eastern  province  of  the  Church  is  perhaps  the  least 
generally  known  of  any  part  of  Christendom.  We  may,  then, 
begin  profitably  by  an  account  of  the  spread  of  Christianity  in 
these  parts,  and  their  story  down  to  the  arrival  of  the  heresy 
which  cut  them  off  in  the  5th  century. 

f    The  city  of  Edessa,  capital  of  the  kingdom  of  Osroene,  is  the 
(centre  from  which  Christianity  spread  through  East  Syria  and 

1  Si' ah,  "  following  "  ;  a  group  of  heresies  based  on  the  common  idea  that 
'Ali  ibn  Abi  Talib  was  the  lawful  successor  of  Mohammed.  It  has  evolved 
further  mystic  and  pantheist  developments. 

2  Sunni,  a  believer  in  the  Sunnah  (path  =  tradition),  the  name  of  the 
majority  of  Moslems,  again  divided  into  sects. 


THE   EAST   SYRIAN   CHURCH  29 

into  Persia.  How  did  the  faith  come  to  Edessa  ?  One  of  the 
oldest  and  perhaps  most  famous  of  all  the  stories  by  which  local 
Churches  later  connected  themselves  directly  with  our  Lord  and 
his  Apostles  is  the  legend  of  Abgar  of  Edessa.  It  exists  in  many 
versions  ;  Syrians,  Armenians,1  Arabs,  Greeks  and  Latins  all  tell 
the  story.  But  all  go  back  to  two  main  sources,  the  Syrian 
Doctrine  of  Addai  and  Eusebius'  Greek  version.2  We  will  tell 
the  story  first,  then  see  what  we  are  to  think  of  it.  The  Doctrine 
of  Addai  is  a  Syriac  work  by  an  unknown  writer  of  Edessa, 
composed  before  the  end  of  the  4th  century.3  The  text  with 
a  translation  has  been  published  by  Mr  G.  Phillips.4  The  story 
as  here  told  is  this.  In  the  time  of  our  Lord,  Abgar  Ukkama,5  son 
of  Ma'nu,  was  King  of  Edessa.  He  suffered  from  an  incurable 
disease.6  Abgar  sent  an  embassy  to  Sabinus,  the  Roman  governor 
at  Eleutheropolis  in  Palestine.7  The  ambassadors  were  two 
Edessene  noblemen,  Mariyab  and  Shamshagram,  with  a  notary, 
Hannan  the  Scribe.  On  their  way  back  they  pass  through 
Jerusalem  and  there  hear  of  the  great  Prophet  who  heals  the  sick. 
They  see  him  themselves  and  think  that  he  might  perhaps  heal 
their  king.  Hannan  writes  down  all  that  happens,  and  they  take 
the  report  back  to  Edessa.  Abgar  would  like  to  go  to  Jerusalem 
to  be  healed,  but  fears  to  pass  through  Roman  territory.  So  he 
sends  Hannan  back  with  a  letter  beginning  :  "  Abgar  the  Black) 
to  Jesus  the  good  Physician  "  ;  in  this  he  says  that  he  feels  sure] 
that  Jesus  is  either  God  himself  or  the  Son  of  God,  and  invites 
him  to  come  and  live  at  Edessa  and  heal  Abgar's  disease.  Hannan 
found  our  Lord  in  the  house  of  Gamaliel,  "  Chief  of  the  Jews." 
Our  Lord  answered  :  "  Go,  tell  thy  master  who  sent  thee  :  Happy 

1  Leroubna  d'Edesse :  Histoire  d' Abgar,  in  V.  Langlois  :  Collection  des 
historiens  anc.  et  mod.  de  V  Armenie  (Paris,  1880),  1.  313-331. 

2  Tixeront  :   Les  origines  de  VEglise  d'Edesse,  pp.  22-29. 
8  Burkitt     Early  Eastern  Christianity,  p.  11. 

4  G.  Phillips  :  The  Doctrine  of  Addai  the  Apostle  (London,  Tnibner, 
1876). 

5  Ukkama,  "  Black."  There  is  already  some  doubt  as  to  which  King 
Abgar  he  is  meant  to  be. 

6  Not  specified.  Later  writers  say  it  was  "  black  leprosy,"  hence  his 
name  (Tixeront,  op.  cit.  p.  47)  ;  Bar  Hebrasus  says  he  was  called  Black 
because  he  had  white  leprosy  (ed.  Abbeloos  and  Lamy,  hi.  14). 

7  Eleutheropolis  was  not  so  called,  and  had  no  governor,  till  the  year  200. 


30  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

art  thou,  who  hast  believed  though  thou  hast  not  seen  me  ;  for 
it  is  written  that  they  who  see  me  shall  not  believe,  but  they  who 
see  me  not  shall  believe.  Concerning  what  thou  hast  written,  that 
I  should  come  to  thee  :  I  go  back  to  my  Father  who  sent  me, 
because  that  for  which  I  was  sent  is  now  finished.  But  when  I 
have  gone  to  my  Father  I  will  send  thee  one  of  my  disciples,  who 
shall  heal  thee  of  whatever  sickness  thou  hast.  He  shall  bring  all 
who  are  with  thee  to  eternal  life  ;  thy  city  shall  be  blessed,  no 
enemy  shall  rule  over  it  for  ever."  1  Hannan  then  painted  a 
portrait  of  our  Lord  "  in  choice  colours,"  2  and  brought  the 
picture  and  the  message  to  King  Abgar.  Abgar  set  up  the  picture 
in  a  place  of  honour.3  After  Pentecost,  true  to  our  Lord's  pro- 
mise, a  disciple  Addai  comes  to  Edessa.  He  was  one  of  the 
seventy-two,  and  was  sent  by  the  Apostles.  He  lodged  at  the 
house  of  Tobias,  a  Jew,  who  brings  him  to  the  king.  Abgar  is  at 
once  healed  and  converted,  with  a  great  number  of  his  people, 
especially  the  Jews  of  Edessa.  Here  occurs  an  interlude.  Addai 
tells  the  story  of  the  true  Cross,  not  quite  in  the  form  we  know. 
He  says  that  Protonice,  the  wife  of  the  Emperor  Claudius,  being 
converted  by  St.  Peter,  came  to  Jerusalem.  St.  James  was  then 
bishop  there.  They  find  the  true  Cross,  which  restores  life  to  a 
dead  man.  The  Jews  stole  the  Cross  and  mocked  the  Christians  ; 
that  is  why  Claudius  expelled  Jews  from  Rome.  But  Abgar  had 
already  written  to  Tiberius  demanding  punishment  on  all  who 
had  killed  our  Lord.  Tiberius  grants  what  he  asks,  punishes 
Pontius   Pilate   and   kills   many   Jews.     Meanwhile,   at   Edessa 

1  This  is  the  famous  letter  of  our  Lord  to  Abgar  of  Edessa,  cherished  all 
over  Christendom  in  the  Middle  Ages.  It  has  been  found  carved  on  a  lintel 
at  Ephesus,  in  Greek  (Burkitt  :  op.  cit.  p.  15),  and  was  worn  as  a  charm 
in  England  before  the  Conquest  (Dom  A.  Kuypers  :  The  Book  of  Cerne, 
Cambridge,  1902,  p.  205).  The  writer  has,  as  usual,  taken  pains  to  repro- 
duce Biblical  language,  and  has  found  a  very  pretty  antithesis  :  "  the}' 
who  see  me  shall  not  believe,"  etc.  But  the  promise  about  the  independ- 
ence of  Edessa  was  rash.  It  was  sacked  by  Lucius  Quietus  in  116,  and  was 
finally  taken  by  Rome  in  216.  However,  this  assertion  seems  evidence 
of  the  great  antiquity  of  the  document.  A  forger  could  hardly  have  written 
that  after  116.  Perhaps  it  was  composed  to  give  confidence  to  the  Edes- 
senes  about  the  time  when  the  Roman  danger  was  imminent. 

2  A  scribe  was,  of  course,  an  artist. 

3  The  portrait  of  our  Lord  was  long  the  Eastern  counterpart  of  our 
Western  Veronica's  veil. 


THE   EAST  SYRIAN   CHURCH  31 

among  Addai's  converts  are  Aggai,  jeweller  and  wig-maker  to  the 
king,  and  one  Palut.  Addai  being  sick,  ordains  Aggai  as  his 
successor  and  Palut  as  priest.  He  then  dies  in  peace.  Abgar 
also  dies,  and  is  succeeded  by  his  son  Ma'nu,  a  pagan.  Ma'nu 
orders  Aggai  to  make  him  some  heathen  piece  of  jewellery.  Aggai, 
as  a  Christian  bishop,  naturally  refused,  so  the  king  sent  soldiers, 
who  broke  his  legs  as  he  sat  in  church.  Thus  Aggai  dies  a 
martyr.  He  had  not  had  time  to  ordain  Palut.  There  was  no 
bishop  in  Edessa.  Palut  therefore  goes  to  Antioch  and  is  ordained 
bishop  by  Serapion,  who  was  ordained  by  Zephyrinus  of  Rome, 
who  was  ordained  by  St.  Peter,  who  was  ordained  by  Christ.  And 
we  are  told  finally  that  "  Labubna  bar-Sennak,  the  king's  scribe, 
wrote  this." 

Eusebius  tells  the  story  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  i.  13.  He 
agrees  with  the  Syriac  document  in  all  the  main  points.  Abgar 
writes  to  our  Lord  as  "  Good  Saviour  "  and  says  he  has  heard  of 
the  cures  he  has  accomplished  "  without  herbs  or  medicines." 
Our  Lord  writes  him  a  letter  in  answer,1  in  which  Eusebius 
prudently  leaves  out  the  fatal  promise  that  Edessa  shall  never  be 
taken  by  an  enemy.  He  knew,  of  course,  that  it  had  been  taken 
by  the  Romans.  Addai  becomes  Thaddaeus  ;  he  is  sent  by  St. 
Thomas.     The  story  ends  with  the  conversion  of  Abgar. 

Many  reasons  prevent  our  taking  this  legend  seriously.  Apart 
from  other  anachronisms,  there  is  the  enormous  one  about  Palut. 
Serapion  of  Antioch  is  a  real  person  ;  he  reigned  from  190  to  about 
2 1 1.2  He  could  not  have  been  ordained  by  Pope  Zephyrinus, 
because  Zephyrinus  reigned  from  202  to  218.  But  this  is  a  minor 
error.  The  glaring  impossibility  is  about  Palut  himself.  A  man 
ordained  priest  by  one  of  our  Lord's  seventy-two  disciples  could 
not  possibly  have  lived  to  be  ordained  bishop  by  Serapion  in  190. 
So  we  must  leave  the  legend  (though  later  it  may  suggest  some 
historical  considerations)  3  and  seek  the  origin  of  East  Syrian 
Christianity  in  less  picturesque  but  more  authentic  sources. 

There  was  a  Christian  community  at  Edessa  quite  early,  before 

1  Hence,  no  doubt,  the  popularity  of  this  document.  It  would  be  the 
one  extant  authentic  work  written  by  our  Lord  himself. 

2  Eusebius  :   Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  n,  12. 

3  See  p.  33. 


32  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

the  independent  state  fell  in  216.  By  the  year  201  the  Christians 
even  had  a  public  church  in  the  city.  The  Chronicle  of  Edessa  * 
says  that  in  a  flood  which  happened  that  year  the  "  temple  of  the 
Christians  "  was  destroyed.2  There  was  also  a  King  Abgar  who 
was  a  Christian  ;  Julius  Africanus  3  went  to  his  court.4  This  is 
supposed  to  be  Abgar  VIII  (176-213). 5  We  must  suppose  that 
the  faith  spread  to  the  East  in  its  first  expansion  after  Whitsunday. 
Already,  then,  among  those  who  heard  the  apostles  speak  in 
diverse  tongues  were  "  those  who  dwell  in  Mesopotamia." 6 
Further,  we  may  no  doubt  suppose  that  the  very  first  converts,  as 
usual,  were  members  of  the  Jewish  community  at  Edessa.  The 
Mesopotamians  who  were  at  Jerusalem  on  Whitsunday  were,  of 
course,  Jews  from  Mesopotamia  ; 7  it  is  no  doubt  significant  that 
the  legend  makes  Addai  dwell  at  the  house  of  a  Jew  (above,  p.  30). 
How  far  Addai  is  a  real  person  is  difficult  to  judge.  Dr.  Wigram 
is  disposed  to  admit  some  basis  of  truth  in  him,  on  the  strength 
of  a  lately  discovered  history  of  the  Bishops  of  Adiabene.8  In 
any  case,  we  have  evidence  of  Christianity  at  Edessa  in  the  2nd 
century.  From  that  time  Edessa  is  the  centre  from  which  it 
spread  in  Mesopotamia,  Adiabene,  and  into  Persia.  This  is 
natural,  since  it  was  the  chief  city  of  East  Syria  ;  we  always  find 
Christianity  established  first  in  the  capitals  and  so  spreading  to 
the  country  round.  Naturally,  too,  when  local  churches  began  to 
be  organized,  Edessa  was  the  metropolitan  see  of  East  Syrian 
Christendom.  The  first  Bishop  of  Edessa  of  whom  we  know  for 
certain  is  Kona,  who  built  a  church  in  313. 9  He  was  succeeded  by 
Sa'ad  (f  c.  323-324),  and  after  Sa'ad  came  Aitallaha.  And  now  we 
are  in  the  full  light  of  history ;  for  Aitallaha  sate  at  Nicaea  in  325. 10 

1  Compiled  about  540  from  contemporary  archives,  published  by  Asse- 
mani  :  Bibliotheca  orientalis,  i.  388-417,  and  by  L.  Hallier  in  the  Texte  u. 
Untersuchungen,  ix.  1  (Leipzig,  1892).  See  Duval  :  La  litter ature  syriaque, 
pp.  187-188. 

2  Assemani  :   op.  cit.  i.  p.  390. 

3  See  the  Catholic  Encyclopedia,  viii.  565-566. 

4  H.  Gelzer  :    Sextus  Julius  Africanus  (Leipzig,  1898),  p.  3. 

5  Tixeront :   Les  origines  de  I  Eglise  d'Edesse,  p.  10. 

6  Acts  ii.  9.  7  Acts  ii.  5. 

8Mingana:  Sources  syriaques  (Leipzig,  1907).  Hist,  of  Mshihazka, 
pp.  77-78.     See  Wigram  :  The  Assyrian  Church,  p.  27. 

9  Tixeront :   op.  cit.  p.  9. 

10  Assemani :   Bibl.  Orient,  i.  p.  394,  n.  xiv. 


THE   EAST  SYRIAN   CHURCH  33 

Can  we  conjecture  anything  further  about  the  time  before  Kona  ? 
Mr.  Burkitt,  in  his  Early  Eastern  Christianity,1  having  discussed 
the  Abgar  legend  and  the  few  historic  evidences  for  the  earliest 
period,2  makes  an  interesting  conjecture  as  to  what  really  hap- 
pened. He  thinks  that  Christianity  began  among  the  Jews  of 
Edessa.  Addai,  a  Jew  from  Palestine,  first  preached  the  Gospel 
there,  probably  before  the  middle  of  the  2nd  century.  At 
first  Christianity  was  largely  Jewish.  Then  it  was  accepted  by 
the  pagan  nobility,  and  in  the  3rd  century  became  the  State 
religion.  Aggai,  too,  may  well  be  a  real  person,  Addai's  suc- 
cessor. But  this  Edessene  Church  stood  rather  apart  from  the 
main  stream  of  Catholic  Christianity.  It  was  a  Jewish  Church, 
which  might  have  evolved  into  something  like  the  Ebionites. 
Then,  after  the  Roman  Conquest  (216),  there  came  a  new  stream 
from  Antioch,  a  more  Catholic  influence,  in  direct  communication 
with  the  great  Church  of  the  Empire.  This  is  represented  by 
Palut.  At  first,  maybe,  there  was  friction  between  these  two 
parties.3  St.  Ephrem  notes  that  at  one  time  the  Catholics  were 
called  Palutians,  as  if  they  were  a  new  sect.4  However,  ulti- 
mately Palut  and  his  party  remain  in  possession  as  the  official 
Church  of  Edessa  ;  others  become  mere  sects.  Then,  long  after, 
a  writer  combines  the  two  sources  and  imagines  a  line  of  bishops 
Addai — Aggai — Palut.5  Palut's  successors  are  said  to  have  been 
'Abshalama,  then  Bar-Samya,  then  Kona.6  During  the  persecu- 
tion of  Diocletian  (284-305)  and  Licinius  there  were  martyrs  at 
Edessa.  We  hear  of  Shmuna,  Gurya,  a  deacon  Habib  and 
others.7 

Two  figures  stand  out  in  the  ante-Nicene  Church  of  Edessa — 

1  London,  J.  Murray,  1904. 

2  Chap.  i. 

3  We  might  compare  Palut  and  the  old  Edessene  Church  (on  this  sup- 
position) with  St.  Augustine  of  Canterbury  and  the  British  Church. 

4  Burkitt  :  op.  cit.  p.  28.  James  of  Edessa  (684-687)  quotes  Ephrem 
as  having  said  this. 

5  Burkitt  :   op.  cit.  pp.  34-35 

6  lb. 

7  The  Jacobite  bishop  James  of  Batnan  in  Mesopotamia  (James  of  Srug. 
f  521  ;  cf.  Duval  :  Litterature  syriaque,  pp.  352-356)  composed  metrical 
homilies  about  these  martyrs.  Assemani  :  Bibl.  orient,  i.  329-333  (Nos. 
191-192). 

3 


34  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Bardesanes  and  Tatian.  Bardesanes  1  was  born  at  Edessa  in  154, 
and  was  educated  together  with  King  Abgar  VIII  (176-213). 
He  became  a  Christian  and  afterwards  2  turned  heretic,  so  that  he 
is  known  as  one  of  the  great  ante-Nicene  heretics,  and  the  leader 
of  a  sect.  What  was  his  heresy  ?  He  was  clearly  some  kind  of 
Gnostic  ;  but  "  Gnostic  "  covers  many  things.  The  common 
and  apparently  correct  tradition  is  that  he  was  a  disciple  of 
Valentinus.  Michael  the  Great,  Jacobite  Patriarch  of  Antioch 
from  1 166  to  1199,3  gives  an  account  of  his  ideas  which,  allowing 
for  the  cloudiness  of  all  Gnostic  metaphysics,  agrees  well  enough 
with  this.4  He  died  in  222,  and  left  a  school.5  Tatian  (Tatianus 
Assyrus)  made  his  name  famous  by  his  Diatessaron.  He  says  of 
himself  that  he  was  "  born  in  the  land  of  the  Assyrians  "  (i.e. 
East  Syria),  and  had  been  a  pagan.6  He  came  to  Rome,  and  was 
converted  about  the  year  150  ;  here  he  wrote  in  Greek  an 
Apology  "  ?rpos  "EXA^va?."  7  Then  he  went  back  to  his  own  land 
(about  172)  and  settled  at  Edessa.  Here  he  wrote  his  Dia- 
tessaron. Diatessaron  (Sia  Teo-o-apwi/)  means  "  harmony."  It  is 
the  first  example  of  an  attempt  to  unite  the  four  Gospels  in  one 
continuous  narrative.  He  probably  wrote  it  in  Syriac.  Either 
before  or  after  this  he  broke  with  the  Church.  He  became  a 
Gnostic  of  the  Valentinian  type,  and  founded,  or  at  least  greatly 
promoted,  the  special  sect  of  Enkratites  fEy/cpa-m-ai),  who  declared 
marriage,  wine  and  flesh-meat  sinful.8  The  date  of  his  death  is 
not  known.     His  sect  existed  for  some  time  after  him,  and  was 

1  Bar-Daisan,  "  Son  of  the  Daisan,"  which  is  the  river  at  Edessa. 

2  So  Epiphanius  :  Adv.  hcsr.  lvi.  1  (P.G.  xli.  990-991)  ;  Eusebius  makes 
him  first  a  Valentinian  heretic,  later  more  or  less  orthodox  (Hist.  Eccl. 
iv.  30  ;    P.G.  xx.  404). 

3  Duval  :   Litterature  syriaque,  p.  207.     See  below,  pp.  329-330. 

4  Quoted  by  Burkitt  :    op.  cit.  pp.  159-160. 

5  Hilgenfeld  :   Bardesanes  der  letzte  Gnostiker  (Leipzig,  1864). 

6  Tatian  :   Or.  adv.  Grcec.  42  (P.G.  vi.  888). 
'  P.G.  vi.  803-888. 

8  These  are  Bardenhewer's  conclusions  (Gesch.  der  altkirchlichen  Litteratur, 
Freiburg,  1902  ;  i.  242-245).  Harnack  at  one  time  maintained  that  Tatian 
was  a  Greek  (Texte  u.  Unters.,  Leipzig,  1882  ;  i.  1-2)  ;  but  afterwards 
admitted  that  he  had  been  mistaken  (Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Litt.,  Leipzig, 
1897  ;  11.  i.  p.  284,  note  1).  There  are  other  theories  about  Tatian's  career, 
and  the  dates  (e.g.  Funk  :  Zur  Chronologie  Tatians,  in  his  Kirchengesch. 
Abhandl.  u.  Untersuch.,  Paderborn,  1899,  ii.  142-152). 


THE   EAST  SYRIAN   CHURCH  35 

conspicuous  through  using  water  even  for  the  holy  Eucharist. 
For  a  long  time  Tatian's  Diatessaron  was  the  official  version  used 
by  the  East  Syrian  Church.  But  the  memory  of  the  author's  bad 
end  was  always  an  argument  against  it  ;  eventually  the  Syrians 
conformed  to  common  Christian  use  and  changed  back  to  the 
Gospels  as  they  were  written,  in  four  separate  narratives.  The 
official  Syriac  Bible,  still  used  by  all  Syriac-speaking  Christians, 
is  the  Peshitto.1  Mr.  Burkitt  thinks  this  was  introduced  by 
Rabbula  of  Edessa  (411-435  ;  see  p.  77). 2 

After  Nicaea  (325,  at  which  Aitallaha,  Bishop  of  Edessa,  was 
present),  the  chief  figure  at  Edessa  is  St.  Ephrem.  Ephrem3  the 
Syrian  is  the  best-known  of  the  "  Eastern  "(neither  Greek  nor 
Latin)  fathers.  He  was  born  at  Nisibis  (then  still  a  city  of  the 
Empire)  under  Constantine  (306-337).  He  is  said  to  have  had 
Christian  parents,  to  have  been  the  pupil  and  friend  of  James, 
Bishop  of  Nisibis,  and  to  have  accompanied  him  to  Nicaea  in  325. 
During  the  Persian  sieges  of  Nisibis  (338,  346,  350)  he  encouraged 
his  fellow-citizens  ;  afterwards  he  wrote  poetic  accounts  of  these 
troubles.4  When  Nisibis  became  Persian  territory  (363),  Ephrem, 
with  many  other  Christians,  took  refuge  in  Edessa.  He  lived  as 
a  monk  on  a  mountain  near  the  city,  had  many  disciples,  and  came 
frequently  to  preach  in  the  churches.  About  the  year  370  he 
came  to  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia  to  see  St.  Basil  (f379)>  whose 
fame  had  spread  over  all  the  East.  Basil  ordained  him  deacon  ; 
he  was  not  a  priest.  He  died,  the  most  famous  theologian, 
orator  and  poet  of  the  Syrian  Church,  in  373.  St.  Ephrem  left  an 
enormous  amount  of  writings,  commentaries  on  the  Bible, 
sermons  (in  metre),  hymns  and  poems,  all  in  the  dialect  of 
Edessa.5  All  Syrian  Christians  count  him  as  their  greatest 
father  ;  his  works  were  an  important  factor  in  determining  the 
classical  form  of  the  Christian  Syriac  language.  The  Arians  had 
already  disturbed  the  peace  of  the  Edessene  Church  during  St. 

1  Mafakta  psltta  ("simple  version"). 

2  Early  Eastern  Christianity ,  Lecture  II.  :  "  The  Bible  in  Syriac,"  39-78. 
8  Afrem. 

4  Carmina  Nisibena,  published  by  G.  Bickell  (Leipzig,  1866). 

5  Chief  edition  by  the  Assemanis  in  six  folio  volumes  (Rome,  1732-1746). 
For  further  literature  see  Bardenhewer  :  Patrologie  (Freiburg,  1894),  364- 
366. 


36  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Ephrem's  life.  After  his  death  they  got  possession  of  it  for  a 
short  time,  and  drove  out  the  Catholic  bishop  Barses  with  his 
followers  in  361.  But  their  triumph  lasted  only  a  short  time  ; 
then  the  Catholics  came  back.1  It  seems,  indeed,  that  the  later 
Nestorian  heresy  was  taken  up  at  Edessa,  at  least  partly,  as  an 
opposition  to  Arianism  (see  p.  60). 

What  was  the  ecclesiastical  position  of  the  see  of  Edessa  ?  By 
the  unconscious  development  which  we  notice  in  the  earliest 
Church  organization,  in  which,  naturally,  the  main  centres  ob- 
tained authority  over  lesser  outlying  dioceses,2  Edessa  certainly 
was  the  chief  see  of  far-eastern  Christendom.  And  when  the 
first  Christian  missions  began  in  Persia,  they  too  came  from 
Edessa,  and  looked  to  Edessa  as  their  capital.  We  may  count 
Edessa  from  the  beginning  as  Metropolis  of  East  Syria,  the 
centre  of  Syriac-speaking  Christendom,  as  Antioch  was  centre 
of  the  more  Hellenized  Churches  of  West  Syria.  But  it  has 
never  been  counted  a  Patriarchate.  No  Bishop  of  Edessa  ever 
thought  of  assuming  the  tempting  title  of  Patriarch  of  Mesopo- 
tamia. Why  not  ?  Because,  at  any  rate  in  theory,  they  them- 
selves were  subject  to  Antioch.  Edessa  and  its  province,  even 
(as  we  shall  see)  its  outlying  mission  in  Persia,  were  part  of  the 
great  Antiochene  Patriarchate.  There  does  not  seem  any  doubt 
of  this  in  theoretic  canon  law,  though  it  is  a  question  how  much 
real  authority  the  Antiochene  Pontiff  exercised  over  these"  distant 
lands.  For  one  thing,  all  Catholic  Christendom  before  the  Council 
of  Constantinople  in  381  was  supposed  to  be  subject  to  one  of  the 
three  original  Patriarchs  of  Rome,  Alexandria,  Antioch.3  Edessa 
was  certainly  not  in  the  Patriarchate  of  Rome  or  Alexandria. 
Antioch  counted  as  its  domain  "  the  East  "  (irda-q  rj  avaTokrj),  that 
is,  the  Roman  prefecture  so-called  (Oriens).4  This  covered  Asia 
Minor,  Thrace  (Egypt),  Syria,  and  stretched  eastward  as  far  as 
the  Empire  went.5  Edessa  was  in  that  prefecture.  The  story 
of  Palut  going  up  to  Antioch  to  be  ordained,  whether  it  be  history 
or  legend,  is  significant,  as  showing  the  idea  of  dependence  on 

1  Lequien  :    Oriens.  Christ,  ii.  957. 

2  See  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  pp.  7-8. 

3  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  pp.  8-9. 

4  Except  Egypt. 

5  Orth.  East.  Church,  pp.  16-17. 


THE   EAST   SYRIAN   CHURCH  37 

Antioch.1  We  shall  see  a  story  of  the  same  kind  in  Persia  (p.  42). 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is,  no  doubt,  true  that  the  authority  of 
Antioch  in  these  distant  East  Syrian  lands  was  rather  theoretic 
than  practical.  Edessa  is  a  long  way  off.  Moreover,  its  develop- 
ment, long  before  the  schism,  already  shows  signs  of  peculiar 
features,  of  a  want  of  close  cohesion  with  the  Mother  Church, 
such  as  often  makes  an  all  too  easy  beginning  for  schism.  Lan- 
guage made  a  difference.  Antioch  was  mainly  Greek  and  became 
more  and  more  so,  as  did  the  cities  near  it  in  West  Syria.2  Its 
liturgy  was  celebrated  in  Greek,  at  any  rate  in  the  cities.  Preachers, 
such  as  St.  John  Chrysostom,  spoke  Greek ;  at  Jerusalem  St. 
Cyril  taught  his  catechumens  in  Greek.  At  Edessa  and  in  the^ 
East  there  is  no  Greek  at  all ;  everything,  including  the  liturgy, 
is  Syriac.  And  the  East  Syrian  liturgy,  though  one  might  classify 
it  remotely  as  Antiochene,  was  celebrated  so  far  from  its  original 
source,  was  so  little  confronted  with  the  later  use  of  Jerusalem- ) 
Antioch,  that  it  developed  into  a  special  rite,  hardly  recognizable  I 
as  having  any  connection  with  that  of  West  Syria.3  If  we  usej 
later  language  (never  actually  applied  to  this  East  Syrian  Church) 
we  may  describe  the  Metropolitan  of  Edessa  as  the  almost  inde- 
pendent Exarch  of  East  Syria  and  (at  first)  of  Persia,  having  a 
vague  dependence  on  the  distant  Patriarch  of  Antioch.4 

For  the  present  we  leave  Edessa.  Only  we  may  note  lastly 
one  other  point.  The  story  of  Palut's  ordination  by  Serapion  of 
Antioch  is  not  content  to  join  Edessa  to  Antioch.  It  carries  the 
line  further,  and  tells  us  that  Serapion  was  ordained  by  Zephyrinus 
of  Rome,  who  came  from  Peter,  who  came  from  Christ.  Serapion 
was  not  ordained  by  Zephyrinus,  as  we  have  seen  (p.  31). 5  But 
that   does  not  matter.      The  meaning  of  the  legend  is  clear. 

1  In  the  East  the  right  of  ordaining  always  involves  jurisdiction  over 
the  ordained  ;   ib.  pp.  7,  45,  etc. 

2  Though  in  the  country  Syriac  was  spoken  in  the  West  too. 

3  For  the  East  Syrian  liturgy  see  pp.  149-156. 

4  Even  the  detail  that  East  and  West  Syria  evolved  variant  forms  of  their 
alphabet  shows  their  separate  development. 

5  Burkitt  suggests  a  reason  for  the  name  of  Zephyrinus.  He  was  Pope 
when  Abgar  IX,  the  last  King  of  Edessa,  was  sent  a  prisoner  to  Rome  in 
216.  It  was  possibly  this  Abgar  who  was  the  first  Christian  king,  who  at 
least  protected  Christianity,  and  so  was  the  origin  of  the  story  of  Abgar  the 
Black  (Early  Eastern  Christianity,  pp.  26-27). 


38  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Edessa  was  conscious  of  a  throne  in  the  far  West,  still  greater 
than  Antioch,  and  wanted  to  show  that  it  got  its  bishop  ulti- 
mately from  the  main  line  of  Pontiffs,  who  go  back  to  St.  Peter  and 
from  him  to  Christ.  It  is  only  a  little  hint ;  we  could  hardly 
expect  more  in  the  legend  of  a  remote  Eastern  Church  ;  but  it 
is  significant.  Edessa,  too,  knew  that  there  is  another  centre 
behind  Antioch,  that  a  perfect  line  of  dependence  goes  on  till  it 
joins  Peter's  successor  at  Rome.  The  early  Church  of  Edessa 
was  Catholic. 

3.  The  Persian  Church 

The  same  impulse  which  brought  the  Gospel  to  Mesopotamia 
carried  it  over  the  frontier  into  the  rival  state.  The  barrier  of 
the  Persian  Empire  stopped  the  legions ;  it  could  not  stop  men 
who  obeyed  the  command  to  go  and  teach  all  nations.  So  under 
the  Great  King  very  early  we  find  people  who  were,  as  Tertullian 
says  of  the  Britons,  "  to  the  Romans  indeed  inaccessible,  but 
subject  to  Christ."1 

In  this  case,  too,  we  have  a  legend  which  we  will  examine  first. 
It  has  various  forms.  The  most  mythical  form  is  that  of  Timothy  I, 
Nestorian  Patriarch  (728-823),  who  says  that  the  Wise  Men  of 
the  Epiphany  began  to  preach  the  Gospel  as  soon  as  they  came 
home.2  Others  ascribe  the  first  mission  to  the  Apostle  St.  Thomas 
and  make  lists  of  bishops  from  him.  The  chief  legend  is  that  of 
the  Acta  Maris?  a  Syriac  work  of  the  6th  century,  based  on 
the  Doctrine  of  Addai*  This  was  then  repeated  by  many  writers, 
and  was,  so  to  say,  the  official  account  of  its  origin  accepted  by 
the  Persian  Church,  and  by  the  Nestorians  down  to  our  own  time. 

The  story  is  that  Addai  sent  his  disciple  Mari 5  to  Nisibis.  Mari 
there  destroys  pagan  temples,  builds  many  churches  and  monas- 
teries. Then  he  travels  down  the  Tigris,  preaches  the  Gospel  by 
Ninive,  around  the  capital  (Seleucia-Ctesiphon) ,  and  comes  as  far 

1  Adv.  Iud.  7  (P.L.  ii.  610). 

2  Labourt  :   Le  Christianisme  dans  I 'empire  perse,  p.  10. 

3  Abbeloos  :  Acta  5.  Maris  Syriace  sive  Aramaice  (Brussels,  1885,  with 
a  Latin  version)  ;  re-edited  by  P.  Bed j an  :  Acta  martyrum  et  sanctorum,  i. 
(Paris,  1890)  ;  German  version  by  R.  Raabe  :  Die  Geschichte  des  Dominus 
Mari  (Leipzig,  1893). 

4  Cf.  Duval:   Litter ature  syriaque,  1 17-120. 

5  Greek  Map^s. 


THE   EAST  SYRIAN    CHURCH  39 

as  the  province  of  Fars,  where  he  "  smelt  the  smell  of  the  Apostle 
Thomas."  1  Everywhere  he  builds  churches  and  monasteries,  and 
at  last  dies  in  peace  at  Dar-Koni,  just  below  the  capital,  having 
ordained  Papa  Bar  'Aggai  to  be  first  Bishop  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon. 
This  Papa  is  a  real  person,  who  lived  at  the  end  of  the  3rd  century  ; 
so,  again,  we  have  an  impossible  connection,  an  anachronism  of 
two  centuries.  Is  there  any  historical  basis  for  Mar2  Mari,  or  is 
he  only  a  legendary  figure  ?  Labourt  and  Duval  do  not  think 
that  his  story  can  really  be  defended  at  all.  Labourt  conceives 
it  as  a  late  legend,  composed  to  exalt  the  insignificant  village  Dar- 
Koni,  and  to  make  it  a  place  of  general  pilgrimage.  But  he  would 
admit  as  possible  that  there  was  such  a  person.3  Dr.  Wigram, 
on  the  strength  of  Mslhazka,4  would  admit  Addai  and  a  bishop 
Pkida  whom  he  ordained  for  Adiabene  in  104.  For  Mari  (whom 
Mslhazka  does  not  mention)  he  thinks  there  is  less  evidence.5 

Labourt  regrets  that  instead  of  these  legends  we  can  advance 
"  only  timid  conjectures"  about  the  origin  of  Persian  Christianity.6 
There  were  flourishing  Jewish  colonies  in  Babylonia  under  the 
Parthian  king.  Whitsunday  saw  "  Parthians  and  Medes  and 
Elamites  and  dwellers  in  Mesopotamia  "  at  Jerusalem,7  that  is, 
Jews  from  those  countries.  No  doubt,  among  them  in  their  own 
homes,  too,  the  name  of  Christ  was  preached  very  early.  An- 
other source  of  Persian  Christianity  was  the  land  of  Adiabene 
(Hadyab),  between  the  Tigris  and  the  Zab,  just  across  the  Roman 
frontier.  Here  during  the  Roman  persecutions  Christians  would 
find  peace  under  the  tolerant  Parthian  kings.  But  there  is  a 
city,  Roman  at  first,  which  became  the  second  centre  of  East 
Syrian  Christianity,  and  then  one  of  the  most  important  places 
of  the  Persian  Church.     This  is  Nisibis,8  about  120  miles  almost! 

1  Acta  S.  Maris,  §  32  (transl.  by  R.  Raabe,  p.  59). 

2  Mar,  by  the  way.,  is  a  title  we  shall  often  meet.  Syriac,  mar  (mar a), 
fern,  mart ;  Arabic,  mar,  f.  mar  ah,  means  Lord  (Lady).  It  is  used  for  bishops, 
patriarchs  and  saints  (sometimes  with  the  first  pers.  suffix:  mari,  etc.). 

3  Labourt  :    op.  cit.  14-15.     Duval  :    loc.  cit. 

4  Above,  p.  32. 

5  Hist,  of  the  Assyrian  Church,  pp.  28-30. 

6  Op.  cit.  15. 

7  Acts  ii.  9. 

8  NiVi/Sts.  Syr:  Nslbln,  Nsibin,  now  a  mean  Arabic  village  with  a  few 
Armenians  and  Jacobites. 


4o  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

due  east  from  Edessa.     It  was  the  great  frontier  garrison  town 
of  the  Empire,   and  Christianity  was  firmly  established  there 
before  the  Persians  took  it.1     After  withstanding  repeated  sieges, 
it  was  ceded  to  Persia  finally  in  363  (after  Julian's  defeat  and 
death).     Many  of  the  Christians  retired  into  Roman  territory  ; 
but  others  remained,  and  in  time,  as  we  shall  see  (p.  75) ,  the  school 
of  Nisibis  became  the  centre  of  Nestorian  theology.     From  here 
the  faith  spread  east  and  south.     There  were  Christians  in  various 
parts  of  the  Parthian  kingdom  ;  but  the  Church  does  not  appear 
to  have  been  organized  in  a  hierarchy  before  the  Sassanid  revolu- 
tion (224).     Later  legends  make  lists  of  bishops  back  to  the  first 
age,  especially  in  the  case  of  the  Metropolis,  Seleucia-Ctesiphon. 
But  it  appears  that,  on  the  contrary,  these  twin  cities  were  at 
first  hardly  at  all  influenced  by  missioners.2    The  Sassanid  kings 
(e.g.  Shapur  I,  241-272)  after  their  conquests  carried  out  the 
old  Eastern  plan  of  deporting  whole  populations  of  subject  pro- 
vinces to  other  parts  of  their  kingdom.     These  formed  large 
Christian  colonies  in   Persia.     The   prisoners  were  often  Chris- 
tians ;  they  took  their  bishops  with  them,  built  churches,  and  so 
founded  new  dioceses  in  Persian  territory.     A  later  legend  tells  us 
that  when  the  Emperor  Valerian  (253-260)  was  taken  prisoner  by 
Shapur,  he  had  with  him  Demetrian,  Bishop  of  Antioch.     Deme- 
trian  went  to  Beth-Lapat,3  east  of  the  Tigris,  and  there  founded  the 
Metropolitan  see  of  that  place.4    There  were,  however,  no  metro- 
politan sees  in  this  first  period,  no  regular  organization.     Bishops, 
themselves  exiles  or  wandering  missioners,  looked  after  the  people 
among  whom  they  found  themselves,  as  best  they  could.     But 
already  the  long  line  of  martyrs,  which  is  the  chief  glory  of  the 
Persian  Church,  had  begun.     Even  under  the  tolerant  Parthians 
popular  tumults,  led  naturally  by  the  Mazdaean  mobeds,  had  slain 
Christians  for  their  faith.     The  first  martyr  is  counted  to  be  Sam- 
son, Bishop  of  Arbela  (Arbel)  in  Adiabene,  successor  of  Pkida, 
whom  Addai  had  ordained.     He  died  in  123 .5    There  were  others, 
as  the  result  of  local  disturbances,  repeatedly.6    The  reason  of 

1  St.  Ephrem  was  a  Nisibite  ;    see  p.  35. 

2  Msihazka,    ed.    by    A.  Mingana  :     Sources  syriaqnes,  vol.  i.   (Leipzig, 
Harrassowitz,  1907),  p.  in. 

3  ~i$oxv  JLl-'Ahwdz.  i  Labourt  :    op.  cit.  19-20. 
5  Wigram  :    op.  cit.  33.                  6  lb.  33-37. 


THE   EAST   SYRIAN   CHURCH  41 

their  death  is  nearly  always  either  that  they  are  apostates  from  the 
national  religion,  or  have  converted  a  Mazdsean.  This  is  typical 
of  the  attitude  of  Persians  before  the  great  persecution.  Christians 
were  tolerated  as  foreigners  from  the  Roman  Empire.  The 
Mazda ans  understood  that  these  Romans  had  their  own  religion  ; 
they  did  not  interfere  in  this  case.  But  there  was  to  be  no 
tampering  with  the  faith  of  true-born  Persians.  In  225 
Msihazka  says  that  there  were  already  more  than  twenty 
Christian  bishops  in  Persia.1  We  have  seen  that  these  must  be 
conceived  as  missioners  or  exiles  not  yet  organized  in  a  regular 
province. 

The  organization  of  the  Persian  Church  was  the  work  of  Papa 
Bar  'Aggai,  whom  legend  makes  the  disciple  of  Mari.  Really 
he  lived  at  the  end  of  the  3rd  and  the  beginning  of  the  4th 
centuries.  He  was  Bishop  of  the  civil  capital,  Seleucia-Ctesiphon. 
From  him  we  can  trace  an  authentic  list  of  Primates  of  Persia  down 
to  the  Nestorian  Patriarchs,  and  so  to  Mar  Shim'un,  now  reigning  at 
Kudshanis.  Following  the  example  of  the  Churches  of  the  Empire, 
he  wanted  to  organize  the  Persian  sees  under  himself.  He  was 
Bishop  of  the  civil  capital :  the  civil  centres  naturally  became 
the  metropolitan  sees  of  the  country  round.2  But  his  plan  met 
with  strong  opposition.  Apparently  the  bishops  in  Persia  had 
too  long  been  used  to  their  independence  and  want  of  organization 
to  welcome  such  a  plan.  A  synod  met,  the  first  of  many  quarrel- 
some Persian  councils,  at  Seleucia  about  the  year  315.3  The 
Fathers  accused  Papa  of  immoral  conduct,  of  pride  and  scorn  for 
canon  law.  He  seized  the  Book  of  Gospels  to  swear  his  innocence, 
but  his  excitement  brought  on  a  fit  of  some  kind  4  and  he  fell  sense- 
less. This,  naturally,  seemed  a  judgement  from  Heaven  ;  he  was 
deposed,  and  his  deacon,  Simon  Bar  Sabba/e,5  was  ordained  in  his 
place.  Papa  did  not  yield.  He  appealed  to  the  "  Western 
Fathers/'  a  fact  that  is  interesting  as  showing  consciousness  of 
higher  authority  over  the  local  sees  of  Persia.  Naturally  his 
appeal  wTent  to  the  immediate  chief,  the  Bishop  of  the  Mother 

1  Op.  cit.  106. 

2  See  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  p.  7.  3  Wigram  :    op.  cit.  p.  50. 

4  He  was  an  old  man  ;   ordained  apparently  in  280  (Wigram  :  op.  cit.  45). 

5  "  Son  of  the  Dyers." 


42  THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Church  of  Edessa  ;  x  a  later  tradition  adds  James  of  Nisibis, 
representing  the  next  most  important  Church  of  those  parts,  as 
also  receiving  Papa's  appeal.  The  Western  Fathers  decided  in 
his  favour,  and  quashed  the  acts  of  the  synod  which  had  deposed 
him.  Their  decision  was  accepted  loyally  by  the  Persian  Church  ; 
Papa  was  restored,  and  Bar  Sabba'e,  who  protested  that  he  had 
been  intruded  and  ordained  against  his  will,  was  to  await  his 
death,  then  to  succeed  him.  The  story  is  interesting  as  the  first 
example  of  the  quarrelsomeness  which  distinguished  the  Church 
of  Persia  ;  it  is  important  as  showing  her  unquestioned  depend- 
ence on  the  "  Western  Fathers."  Till  she  became  Nestorian,  this 
Church  acknowledged  a  higher  authority  over  her  ;  she  had  a 
regular  place  in  the  ordered  system  of  Catholic  Christendom,  as 
a  missionary  Church  depending  immediately  on  her  mother, 
Edessa.  We  shall  come  to  other  evidences  of  this.  Papa  died 
about  the  year  327. 2  He  was  succeeded  by  Simon  (Sim'un)  Bar 
Sabba'e  (f34i),  whose  reign  brings  us  to  the  great  persecution  of 
Shapur  II. 

Although  the  place  of  the  Bishop  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon  as 
Primate  of  Christians  in  Persia  was  not  formally  recognized  (at 
least  by  the  Government)  till  after  that  persecution  (see  p.  48),  it 
seems  that  Papa  succeeded  in  his  plan  practically,  that  from  his 
time  we  may  date  his  see  as  the  first  in  Persia.  Until  the  Roman 
Empire  became  Christian,  the  Kings  of  Persia  tolerated  the  foreign 
religion.  Before  Shapur  II  (339-379),  there  was  a  period  of  peace 
for  Persian  Christians,  broken  only  by  occasional  outbursts  of 
popular  hatred  (p.  40).  During  this  time  the  Church  was  able  to 
establish  herself,  spread  throughout  the  kingdom,3  and  prepare 
for  the  frightful  storm  that  was  coming.  Monasticism  was  firmly 
established,  as  it  was  at  Edessa  and  throughout  East  Syrian 
Christendom.     In  the  early  4th  century  it  was  already  a  flourish  - 

1  Dr.  Wigram  notes  that  he  did  not  appeal  to  Antioch,  and  sees  in  this 
an  argument  for  independence  (op.  cit.  53).  That  does  not  follow.  An 
appeal  goes  naturally  first  to  the  immediate  superior.  Persia  depended 
on  Edessa,  and  Edessa  on  Antioch ;  so  the  place  of  the  Persian  Church  in 
the  Catholic  system  was  quite  normal  and  regular. 

2  Wigram:  op.  cit.  p.  55. 

3  There  were  many  conversions  of  Mazdseans,  in  spite  of  the  danger  to 
both  converter  and  convert. 


THE   EAST   SYRIAN   CHURCH  43 

ing  institution.1  There  were  Solitaries  (hdnanaye)  and  monks  in 
community.  The  common  name  for  a  monk  (but  used  also  for  a 
clerk  in  holy  orders)  is  "  Son  of  the  Covenant." 2  There  were  also 
"  Sons  of  the  Church/'  or  "  Sons  of  the  Faith,"  men  who  lead  an 
ascetic  life,  apparently  without  having  taken  vows,  who  had  no 
"  covenant  "  or  "  pact  "  to  bind  them  to  this  life.3  And  there 
were  "  Daughters  of  the  Covenant,"  too.  A  later  tradition  ascribes 
Persian  monasticism  to  a  certain  Eugene  (Augfn),  who  brought 
it  from  the  Egyptian  desert,  and  founded  the  famous  monastery 
of  Mount  Izla  near  Nisibis  in  the  early  4th  century.4 

The  most  important,  almost  the  only,  authority  for  these 
earliest  times  is  Afrahat,5  the  "  Persian  Sage."  He  lived  in  the 
first  half  of  the  4th  century,  was  a  monk  and  a  bishop.  Tradition 
makes  him  head  of  the  monastery  of  Mar  Matai  (St.  Matthew), 
north  of  Mosul.  Between  the  years  337  and  345  he  wrote 
twenty-three  Homilies  or  "Demonstrations,"  arranged  acrostic- 
ally,  each  beginning  with  a  letter  of  the  Syriac  alphabet.  These 
are  the  chief  source  of  our  knowledge  of  the  theology,  discipline 
and  customs  of  the  Persian  Church  before  the  persecution. 

Afrahat  writes  Trinitarian  doxologies,  naming  the  three  Divine 
Persons  in  the  usual  way ;  but  he  does  not  know  of  the  Council  of 
Nicaea  (325). 6  His  theology  is  hardly  at  all  influenced  by  Greek 
ideas.  He  describes  the  Paschal  Feast  as  kept  on  the  15th  of  Nisan, 
and  lasting  a  week.  It  begins  with  baptism,  and  still  has  several 
Jewish  observances.7  "  The  Lord  with  his  own  hands  gave  his 
body  to  be  eaten  and  his  blood  to  be  drunk   before  he  was 

1  So  Afrahat :  Demonstr.  vi.  :  Patrol.  Syr.  i.  (ed.  by  Dom  Parisot,  Paris, 
1894),  p.  lxv. 

2  Bar  kyama,  :  not  easy  to  translate.  Kyama  is  a  military  station,  a 
law,  treaty,  dogma,  etc.  (kam,  to  stand). 

3  Labourt  :  op.  cit.  29-30. 

4  See  the  Life  of  Eugene  (9th  cent.),  ed.  by  P.  Bedjan  {Acta  martyrum 
et  sanctorum,  Leipzig,  1 890-1 895  ;  iii.  376-480).  Labourt  does  not  think 
much  of  this  story.     Thomas  of  Marga  knows  nothing  of  it  (see  p.  no). 

5  ,A(ppadrr]s. 

6  There  was  one  Persian  bishop  at  Nicaea  ;  see  Harnack  :  Mission  u. 
Ausbreitung  des  Christentums,  p.  442.  Labourt  denies  this,  and  thinks 
that  the  "  John  of  Beit-Parsaya  "  found  in  Syriac  lists  of  the  Nicene 
Fathers  is  an  error  for  John  of  Perrhae  (Le  Christ,  dans  I'emp.  perse,  p.  32, 
n.  2). 

7  Dem.  xii.  (ed.  Parisot,  i.  505-540). 


44  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

crucified."  x  Of  Afrahat's  twenty-three  Homilies  nine  are  con- 
troversy against  the  Jews,  evidently  still  a  burning  subject.2 
He  does  not  dare  attack  Mazdaeism.  Dem.  i.  19  contains  a 
curious  archaic  profession  of  faith  and  a  statement  of  Christian 
law  :  "  This  is  the  faith,  that  a  man  believe  in  God,  Lord  of  all, 
who  made  sky,  earth,  sea  and  all  they  contain,  who  made  man  in 
his  own  image  and  gave  the  Law  to  Moses.  He  sent  of  his  Spirit 
to  the  prophets,  and  at  last  he  sent  his  Messiah  to  the  world.  A 
man  must  believe  in  the  rising  of  the  dead,  and  in  the  mystery  of 
baptism.  This  is  the  faith  of  the  Church  of  God."  The  law  is  : 
"  Not  to  observe  hours,  weeks,  new  moons,  yearly  feasts,3  divina- 
tion, magic,  Chaldaean  arts  and  witchcraft.  To  keep  from 
fornication,  poetry,  unlawful  science,  which  is  the  instrument  of 
the  evil  one,  from  the  seduction  of  honeyed  words,  blasphemy 
and  adultery.  Not  to  bear  false  witness,  not  to  speak  with  a 
double  tongue.  These  are  the  works  of  faith  built  on  the  firm 
rock  which  is  Christ,  on  whom  all  the  building  rests."  4  We 
can  agree  that  the  Persian,  indeed  the  East  Syrian  Church 
generally,  kept  these  rules  faithfully.  The  dull  documents  of 
later  ages  will  convince  anyone  that  she  abstained  strictly  from 
the  seduction  of  honeyed  words.  Renan  pointed  out  that  the 
dominating  note  of  Syriac  literature  is  its  mediocrity. 5 

Constantine  wrote  to  Shapur  II  :  "I  rejoice  to  hear  that  all 
the  chief  cities  of  Persia  are  adorned  by  the  presence  of  Chris- 
tians." 6    But  that  was  the  end  of  peace.     Shapur  II,  the  long- 

1  Dem.  xii.  6  (ed.  Parisot..  col.  518). 

2  There  were  large  Jewish  communities  throughout  Persia  during  all  this 
time.  From  the  2nd  to  the  6th  centuries,  the  centre  of  gravity  of  Jewry  was 
in  Southern  Mesopotamia,  where  the  Babylonian  Talmud  was  composed. 
H.  L.  Strack  :  Einleitung  in  den  Talmud  (ed.  iv.,  Leipzig,  1908),  pp.  67-69  ; 
Graetz :  Hist,  of  the  Jews  (Engl,  translation,  London,  D.  Nutt,  1891),  ii. 
pp.  508-536. 

3  That  is,  pagan  astrological  calculations  and  feasts. 

4  Ed.  Parisot,  i.  44-45. 

5  Be  philosophia  peripatetica  ap.  Syros  (Paris,  1852),  p.  3.  For  Afrahat, 
see  Labourt  :  op.  cit.  28-42  ;  Burkitt  :  op.  cit.  79-95  ;  Duval  :  Litter  attire 
syriaque,  225-229.  His  homilies  are  edited  by  W.  Wright  :  The  Homilies 
of  Aphraates  (London,  1869  ;  Syriac  only)  ;  by  Dom  Parisot  in  Graffin  : 
Patrologia  Syriaca,  1.  ii.  (Paris,  1 894-1907  ;  Syr.  and  Latin)  ;  by  G.  Bert  : 
Aphraates  des  persischen  Weisen  Homilien  (Leipzig,  1888  :  Texte  u.  Unters. 
iii.  3-4,  German  only). 

6  Vita  Const,  iv.  13  (P.G.  xx.  1161). 


THE   EAST   SYRIAN   CHURCH  45 

lived  king  who  was  crowned  in  his  cradle  and  reigned  seventy 
years  (309-379),  full  of  glory  and  renown,  began  what  is  perhaps 
the  fiercest  persecution  the  Church  has  ever  had  to  endure. 

It  is  strange  that  anyone  can  forget  the  Persian  martyrs.  Not 
in  the  worst  time  of  Roman  persecution  was  there  so  cruel  a  time  j 
for  Christians  as  under  Shapur  II  of  Persia.  In  proportion  to  its 
extent  and  the  time  the  persecution  lasted,  Persia  has  more 
martyrs  than  any  other  part  of  the  Christian  world.  The  cause 
of  the  persecution  may  easily  be  understood.  As  long  as  the 
Roman  Empire  was  pagan  the  Persian  king  had  no  particular 
prejudice  against  Christians.  Indeed,  while  Rome  persecuted 
them,  Christians  found  an  asylum  under  the  protection  of  her 
enemy.  But  when  Christianity  became  the  official  religion  of  the 
Empire,  how  could  the  Great  King  tolerate  it  in  his  realm  ? 
Shapur  II  spent  his  life  fighting  Rome  ;  could  he  allow  his  ownj 
subjects  to  profess  the  Roman  religion  ?  The  cross  was  the 
Roman  standard  ;  could  he  let  it  stand  on  his  side  of  the  frontier  ? 
These  Christians  prayed  with  his  enemies,  no  doubt  they  prayed 
for  them.  How  could  he  tolerate  such  disloyalty  behind  him 
when  he  went  out  to  war  ?  It  is  the  tragic  situation  often 
repeated  in  history  :  Christianity  was  treason  against  the  State. 
Without  any  particular  wish  to  trouble  people's  consciences,  a 
country  at  war  can  hardly  allow  what  seems  treason  at  home. 
No  doubt  the  Persian  Christians,  almost  inevitably,  gave  some 
cause  for  this  idea.  They  heard  with  joy  that  across  the  frontier 
the  faith  was  now  honoured,  protected,  triumphant.  How  could 
they  help  contrasting  this  with  their  own  State  ?  And  when  they 
learned  that  the  Christian  legions  were  marching  against  the 
Pagan  king,  how  could  they  help  hoping,  praying,  that  their 
fellow-Christians  should  win,  should  occupy  the  land  and  bring 
to  them  too  peace  and  honour,  as  the  Church  enjoyed  where 
Caesar  reigned  ?  Were  there  even  machinations  with  Rome  ?  It 
would  not  be  surprising  if  there  were.  In  any  case,  the 
Persian  Government  thought  so.  In  Shapur's  first  proclamation 
against  Christians  he  explains  his  reason  :  "  They  dwell  in  our 
land  and  share  the  ideas  of  Caesar,  our  enemy."  *  The  mobeds  tell 
the  king  that  "  there  is  no  secret  which  Simon  2  does  not  write  to 
1  Labourt :  op.  cit.  46.         2  Simon  Bar  Sabba/e,  Papa's  successor  (p.  42). 


46  THE   LESSER  EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Caesar  to  reveal."  1  Long  afterwards,  under  Piruz  (459-484), 
Babwai  of  Seleucia  is  cruelly  put  to  death  because  a  letter  from 
him  to  the  Emperor  Zeno  had  been  intercepted,  in  which  he  had 
written  (as  the  Persians  translated)  :  "  God  has  delivered  us  up 
to  an  impious  sovereign."  2  Shapur  first  made  Christians  pay 
double  taxes  to  subsidize  the  war  ;  3  then  begins  the  long  list  of 
executions  and  torture  which  lasts  throughout  his  reign.  Chris- 
tianity is  punished  by  death  ;  all  Persians  must  show  their  loyalty 
to  the  King  of  Kings  by  accepting  his  religion.4  Simon  Bar 
Sabba/e,  Papa's  successor  at  Seleucia-Ctesiphon,  is  told  to  worship 
the  sun.  He  answers  :  "  The  sun  put  on  mourning  when  its 
Creator  died,  as  a  slave  for  its  master."  His  companions  are 
killed  before  him,  five  bishops  and  a  hundred  priests  ;  he  dies  last 
on  Good  Friday,  33c).5  Shahdost,6  his  successor,  was  martyred  in 
342  ;  the  next  bishop  of  the  capital,  Bar  Ba'shmln,  in  346. 
There  was  then  a  vacancy  of  twenty  years. 

It  would  be  long  to  give  even  an  outline  of  the  martyrdoms 
under  Shapur  II.  Till  he  died  in  379,  all  over  Persia,  bishops, 
clergy,  laymen  and  women  were  arrested,  offered  their  choice 
between  accepting  Mazdaeism  or  death,  and  were  executed  with 
all  manner  of  horrible  torture.  The  Roman  martyrology  on 
April  21  keeps  the  memory  of  St.  Simon  Bar  Sabba/e  and  his 
companions  (Byzantine  Calendar,  April  17)  ;  and  on  August  4 
we  commemorate  :  "In  Persia  the  holy  martyrs  la7  and  her 
companions,  who  with  nine  thousand  others,  under  Shapur, 
tortured  by  diverse  pains,  suffered  martyrdom  ;  "  so  also  the 
Byzantine  Calendar  on  the  same  day.8  The  Nestorians  and 
Chaldees  keep  on  the  sixth  Friday  of  summer  "  the  memory  of 
Mar  Shim'un  Bar  Sabba/e,  Katholikos  and  Patriarch,  disciple  of 
Mar  Papa  Katholikos,  and  of  the  Fathers  who  were  crowned  with 
him."  9     After   Shapur's   death   Marutha,   Bishop  of  Maiferkat 

1  Labourt  :   ib.  46.  2  Ib.  143. 

3  This  is  ordered  by  his  first  proclamation  :    Labourt,  46. 

4  Jews  were  cruelly  persecuted  too. 

5  Lequien  :  Or.  Christ,  ii.  1107.  Labourt  gives  the  story  of  his  trial  and 
death,  63-68  ;    also  Wigram  :   op.  cit.  63-64. 

6  Persian  for  "  friend  of  the  King." 

7  Eudocia  (Nilles  :  Kalendarium  manuale,  Innsbruck,  1896;    i.  p.  234). 

8  Ib.  233  '  Ib.  ii.  687. 


THE   EAST  SYRIAN   CHURCH  47 

(see  below),  collected  a  great  number  of  relics  of  these  martyrs  and 
brought  them  to  his  own  city,  which  was  then  called  Martyro- 
polis.  The  Byzantine  Menaia  commemorates  on  February  6  u  the 
holy  martyrs  who  rest  at  Martyropolis,  and  St.  Maruthas,  who 
raised  up  the  city  in  the  name  of  the  martyrs."  A  Syriac  Calendar 
in  the  Vatican  has  this  commemoration  on  Friday  after  Easter.1 
But  there  are  many  thousands  of  martyrs  under  Shapur  whose 
names  are  not  known.  Sozomen  tells  the  story  of  his  persecution, 
and  counts  16,000  as  known.2 

During  Shapur  IPs  reign  an  event  of  great  importance  to  the 
Persian  Church  happened.  Persia  took  the  city  of  Nisibis  in 
363  (p.  26),  and  so  this  important  see  and  theological  school 
are  henceforth  Persian.  Shapur's  brother,  Ardashir  II  (379- 
383),  continued  the  persecution.  But  after  his  death  there  was 
peace  for  a  time.3  Two  rather  mysterious  Bishops  of  Seleucia 
now  appear,  Tamuza  and  Kayuma.  Labourt  doubts  their 
existence  :  4  Wigram  defends  it.5  Then  comes  Isaac  (Ishak)  I 
(399-410),  contemporary  with  King  Yazdagird0  I  (399-420). 
During  this  time  of  peace  after  the  first  great  persecution  the 
Persian  Church  was  thoroughly  reorganized. 

The  chief  agent  of  this  reorganization  was  Marutha  of  Maiferkat, 
already  mentioned.  Maiferkat  was  just  over  the  frontier  between 
the  Tigris  and  Lake  Van.  Marutha  came  to  Persia  as  ambassador 
from  Theodosius  II  (408-450)  ;  while  he  was  there  he  used  his 
influence  as  representing  the  "Western  Fathers"7  to  arrange 
the  affairs  of  the  distracted  Christians  in  Persia.  King  Yazdagird 
was  well  disposed  towards  him  8  and  the  Christians,  and  encour- 
aged the  work.     In  spite  of  her  heroic  suffering  under  persecution, 

1  Nilles  :    op.  cit.  ii.  334-335,  and  note  2. 

2  Hist.  Eccl.  ii.  14  (P.G.  lxvii.  969).  A  much  fuller  account  will  be  found 
in  Labourt  :   op.  cit.  63-82  ;   and  Wigram  :   op.  cit.  56-76. 

3  Peace  with  Rome  and  for  the  Persian  Christians.  These  two  generally 
go  together. 

4  Op.  cit.  85-86,  note  4.  5  Op.  cit.  101-102. 

6  That  is,  I  believe,  the  Persian  form.  In  Syriac  he  is  Yazdgerd,  in 
Arabic  Yazdashir.  7  Being  a  suffragan  of  Edessa. 

8  Socrates  {Hist.  Eccl.  vii.  8  ;  P.G.  lxvii.  752)  and  others  say  that  Marutha 
was  a  physician,  and  healed  the  king  of  a  bad  headache.  Yazdagird  was 
very  friendly  towards  Christians  at  first ;  so  much  so  that  they  hoped  to 
find  in  him  the  Persian  Constantine,  and  the  Mazdaeans  thought  him  an 
apostate.     But  at  the  end  he  became  a  fierce  persecutor  (p.  50). 


48  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

the  Church  of  Persia  was  torn  by  quarrels.  The  bishops  had 
accused  Isaac  I  of  various  malpractices,  and  he  was  put  in  prison 
by  the  Government.  This  appeal  to  the  secular,  pagan  and 
persecuting  power  is  characteristic  of  Persian  Christians.  Marutha 
used  his  influence  to  set  Isaac  free,  convoked  a  great  synod  to 
examine  the  charges  against  him  and  re-establish  order  generally. 
The  synod  met  at  Seleucia  in  410.  Marutha  played  the  chief  part 
in  it.  It  was  to  be  for  Persia  what  Nicaea  had  been  for  the 
Empire.  About  forty  bishops  were  present.  Marutha  presented 
letters  from  the  Western  Fathers — first  Porphyrios  of  Antioch,  the 
Patriarch  (404-413),  then  the  Metropolitan  of  Edessa  and  others. 
Here  we  see  Antioch  at  the  head  of  its  Patriarchate,  including 
Persia.  The  synod  accepts  and  signs  the  decrees  of  Nicaea, 
including  its  creed.  It  accepts  the  rules  made  for  it  by  the 
Western  Fathers,  namely  :  that  only  one  bishop  shall  be  allowed 
in  each  see  ;  that  he  shall  be  ordained  by  three  others  ;  that  Easter, 
the  Epiphany,  the  forty  days  of  Lent  and  Good  Friday  shall  be 
kept  as  in  the  rest  of  the  Church ;  that  Nicaea  shall  be  accepted. 
Twenty-one  canons  were  drawn  up  on  the  model  of  those  of 
Nicaea.  Of  these  canons  the  most  important  to  us  are  those 
which  regulate  the  position  of  the  Bishop  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon. 
He  is  made  formally  the  head,  the  Primate  of  the  Persian  Church. 
All  bishops  and  metropolitans  may  appeal  to  him  ;  he  must 
confirm  all  episcopal  elections.  This  then  definitely  realizes  the 
/  ambition  of  Papa  (p.  41)  ;  from  now  we  count  the  Bishop  of 
I  Seleucia-Ctesiphon  as  unquestioned  Primate  of  Christian  Persia. 
From  now  also  he  is  commonly  called  by  a  title  that  we  meet  for 
the  first  time.  Metropolitan  is  not  enough  ;  he  had  metropolitans 
under  him.  Patriarch  is  too  much ;  he  had  a  Patriarch  over  him.1 
He  was  what  we  should  call  an  Exarch,  like  those  of  Caesarea 
and  Ephesus.2  As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  took  what  seems  to  have 
been  meant  as  a  more  splendid  title  ;   he  was  the  Katholikos.3 

1  It  was  not  till  the  Persian  Church  began  her  path  of  schism  that  the 
Bishop  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon  called  himself  Patriarch.  Till  then  he  was 
himself  subject  to  the  Patriarch  of  Antioch. 

2  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  pp.  23-25. 

3  Katulika,  Katullkus,  and  various  spellings.  Ar.  gdthulik.  In  English 
"  Katholikos  "  seems  the  reasonable  form,  or  at  any  rate  "  Catholicus." 
"  Catholicos,"  not  seldom  seen,  is  a  bad  mixture  of  Greek  and  Latin 


THE   EAST  SYRIAN   CHURCH  49 

This  had  already  been  adopted  by  the  Armenian  Primate 
(p.  405),  from  whom  apparently  the  Persians  took  it.  It  is  not 
easy  to  account  for  the  origin  of  the  title.  There  was  a  civil 
Roman  official  so  called.  No  doubt  its  suggestion  of  the  name  of 
the  Church  in  the  Creeds  made  it  seem  a  suitable  form  for  the 
chief  bishop  of  a  vast  semi-independent  local  Church.  It  was 
meant  to  imply  the  next  thing  to  a  Patriarch.  One  could  not  call 
oneself  a  Patriarch,  because  there  was  a  fixed  idea  of  only  three 
Patriarchs,  and  then  (by  act  of  General  Councils)  of  five.1  It 
would  have  been  repugnant  to  all  the  idea  of  Christendom  at  this 
time  to  call  any  important  bishop  a  Patriarch,  as  later  ages  have 
done  ;  just  as  our  present  multitude  of  "  Emperors  "  would  have 
seemed  absurd.  Later  schisms  destroyed  this  concept ;  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  all  the  original  Katholikoi  now  call  themselves 
Patriarch  too.  That  the  two  titles  were  understood  as  meaning 
nearly  the  same  thing  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  East  Syrian 
writers  about  this  time  (4th  and  5th  century)  very  commonly 
speak  of  the  "  Katholikos  of  Antioch."  2  The  Bishop  of  Seleucia- 
Ctesiphon  later  used  various  descriptions  of  the  place  of  which  he 
was  Katholikos.  The  original  see  becomes  less  and  less  important, 
especially  after  the  Moslem  conquest.  I  doubt  if  Mar  Shim'un  of 
to-day  considers  himself  Bishop  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon.  Rather  the 
' '  Catholicate  "  (if  one  may  so  call  it)  itself  becomes  an  office ;  as  one 
could  imagine  the  Papacy  a  separate  thing,  apart  from  the  diocese 
of  Rome.  Isaac  I's  successors  are  just  "  Katholikoi,"  "  Katholikoi 
of  the  East  "  (this  is  very  common),  "  of  Persia,"  and  so  on. 

This  synod  of  410  drew  up  rules  for  the  election  of  bishops, 
but  made  none  for  that  of  the  Katholikos.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
for  a  long  time  he  was  nominated  by  the  King  of  Persia.  The 
synod  incidentally  found  Isaac  not  guilty  of  the  charges  made 

1  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  chap.  i. 

2  Dr.  Wigram  thinks  that  Katholikos  simply  means  Patriarch  trom  the 
beginning  ;  that  the  Katholikos  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon  was  the  equal  of 
the  Katholikos  of  Antioch  (Hist,  of  the  Assyrian  Church,  pp.  91-92).  Event- 
ually Persia  certainly  claimed  this  ;  but  that  was  just  because  she  had 
become  a  schismatical  Church.  In  her  Catholic  period,  no  doubt  the 
authority  of  Antioch  was  vague  and  rather  theoretic,  no  doubt  the  Katholikos 
of  Seleucia  already  tended  towards  independence,  but  by  common  Church 
law  Antioch  had  jurisdiction  over  all  the  "  East,"  and  Persia  was  part  of 
the  East. 


50  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

against  him.  Ten  years  later  another  synod  (420)  under  Isaac's 
second  successor  Yaballaha  x  (415-420)  adopted  the  canons  of  a 
number  of  Western  synods.2  Already,  in  the  early  5th  century,  the 
Persian  Church  had  missions  in  the  more  eastward  parts  of  Asia. 
In  the  synods  of  this  time  there  are  signatures  of  Bishops  of  Herat, 
Khorasan  and  "  the  tents  of  the  Kurds."3  Later,  as  we  shall  see 
(pp.  103-110),  she  became  one  of  the  chief  missionary  Churches 
of  the  world. 

Towards  the  end  of  Yazdagird  Fs  reign  persecution  broke  out 
again.  It  began  with  the  destruction  of  a  Mazdsean  temple  by  a 
Christian  priest.4  Under  Bahrain  V  (420-438)  it  continued  and 
raged  with  appalling  fierceness.  Again  there  is  a  long  story  of 
hideous  tortures  and  cruel  deaths  :  again  the  Church  of  Persia  sent 
countless  numbers  of  her  children  to  join  the  white-robed  army  of 
martyrs.5  A  treaty  of  peace  between  Bahrain  V  and  Theodosius 
II  (408-450)  in  422  guaranteed  tolerance  for  Mazdaeans  in  the 
Empire  and  for  Christians  in  Persia.  Nevertheless,  there  are 
martyrdoms  for  years  after  that.6 

In  421  (or  422)  Dadyeshu'  7  became  Katholikos ;  he  had  two 
rivals  who  also  claimed  the  see.  Further,  a  number  of  bishops 
contested  the  primacy  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon  altogether.  This 
party  persuaded  the  Government  to  put  him  in  prison.  Then  he 
was  let  out  again  and  resigned  his  see.  But  a  number  of  other 
bishops  refused  to  accept  his  resignation,  and  so  a  council  was 
summoned  at  "  Markabta  of  the  Arabs,"  in  424,  to  settle  these 
quarrels.  Thirty-six  bishops  attended.  Perhaps  we  should 
count  this  Synod  of  Markabta  as  the  beginning  of  the  schism. 
Although  Acacius  of  Amida  8  was  in  Persia  at  the  time,  he  was 

1  "  God  gave  "  (=  Theodore). 

2  E.g.  of  Antioch  in  encceniis  (341),  etc.  Cf.  Wigram  :  Hist,  of  the 
Assyrian  Church,  pp.  110-113.  3  lb.  103,  105. 

4  Labourt  :    Le  Christianisme  dans  V empire  perse,  p.  105. 

5  For  this  persecution  see  Labourt  :  op.  cit.  104-118  ;  Wigram:  op.  cit. 
1 13-120.  6  Labourt,  p.  118.  7  "  Friend  of  Jesus." 

8  Amida  (Diyarbakr)  is  on  the  Roman  side  of  the  frontier.  Acacius  had 
gained  the  esteem  of  the  Persians  by  ransoming  7000  Persian  prisoners 
(selling  his  church  vessels),  feeding  them,  and  then  sending  them  home. 
Bahram  V  asked  him  to  come  to  Persia  to  be  thanked  (Socrates  :  Hist.  Eccl. 
vii.  21  ;  P.G.  lxvi.  782-783).  He  had  been  present  at  the  synod  of  420, 
and  had  used  much  influence  over  it. 


THE   EAST  SYRIAN   CHURCH  51 

not  invited.  No  Western  bishop  was  present.  Dadyeshu'  was 
persuaded  to  withdraw  his  resignation  ;  he  is  acknowledged  as 
lawful  Bishop  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon,  his  authority  over  Persia  is 
recognized.  What  is  more  important  is  that  this  synod  asserts 
his  complete  independence  of  any  earthly  authority  ;  no  longer 
are  the  "  Western  Fathers  "  to  have  any  rights  in  Persia.  That 
a  synod  in  424  should  draw  up  such  a  law  seems  good  evidence 
that  till  that  time  the  Western  Fathers  had  used  authority  of  the 
kind  now  repudiated.  From  424  we  must  date  the  independence' 
of  Persia  from  Edessa  and  Antioch.  This  involves,  of  course, 
independence  from  Antioch 's  superior  at  Rome  ;  so,  from  the 
Catholic  point  of  view,  it  seems  that  we  must  date  the  Persian 
Church  as  schismatical  since  the  Synod  of  Markabta.1  What  the 
synod  declared  was  that  "  Easterns  shall  not  complain  of  their 
Patriarch  to  the  Western  Patriarchs  :  every  case  that  cannot 
be  settled  by  him  shall  await  the  tribunal  of  Christ."  2  It  is 
significant  that  the  title  Patriarch  is  used  here  for  the  first  time 
for  the  Persian  Katholikos,  that  he  is  thus  put  on  an  equality 
with  the  Western  Patriarchs.  That  already  is  schismatical.  We 
do  not  hear  that  Edessa  or  Antioch  at  the  time  made  any  com- 
plaint of  this  infringement  of  their  rights.  By  the  time  they 
heard  of  it  they  were  already  in  the  turmoil  of  Nestorianism  ; 
the  insolence  of  a  remote  mission  probably  did  not  much  trouble 
them.  But  for  the  unhappy  Persian  Church  the  act  of  Markabta 
was  tragically  important.  The  little  ship  left  the  harbour  and 
sailed  out  alone  into  the  coming  storm.  She,  like  England  in  1559, 
"  hazarded  herself  to  be  overwhelmed  and  drowned  in  the  waters 
of  schism,  sects  and  divisions."  3  She  was  so  overwhelmed  and 
drowned  almost  immediately. 

1  A  real  issue  is  involved  in  this.  No  doubt  the  Persian  bishops  before 
424  had  but  little  consciousness  of  the  Papacy.  That  was  a  very  remote 
power  ;  the  furthest  of  the  "  Western  Fathers  "  would  be  the  Roman 
Bishop.  But  the  situation  was  correct  as  long  as  they  recognised  Edessa. 
Edessa  was  under  Antioch  ;  Antioch  acknowledged  Rome  as  the  first 
Patriarchate  (Orth.  Eastern  Church,  chap.  ii.  passim).  In  an  ordered 
hierarchy  it  is  enough  to  acknowledge  your  immediate  superior  ;  he  himself 
carries  the  line  further,  and  so  to  the  centre. 

2  Chabot  :    Synodicon  Orientale,  51,  296. 

3  Archbishop  Heath  in  the  House  of  Lords  in  1559  (Phillips  :  The  Ex- 
tinction of  the  Ancient  Hierarchy,  London,  1905,  p.  74). 


52  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Dadyeshu'  reigned  thirty-five  yeais  (421-456)  ;  meanwhile 
King  Yazdagird  II  (438-457)  continued  a  violent  persecution,  and 
the  already  great  number  of  Persian  martyrs  was  mightily 
increased.1  Already,  under  Dadyeshu',  we  see  the  first  beginning 
of  Nestorianism.  His  successor  Babwai 2  was  Katholikos,  or 
Patriarch,  as  they  now  also  called  him,  from  456  to  485.  Under 
him  Bar  Sauma  begins  his  career  and  introduces  the  heresy  into 
Persia.  So  we  have  arrived  at  last  at  Nestorianism,  and  must 
now  go  back  and  consider  its  origin  at  Antioch  and  Constanti- 
nople before  we  tell  of  its  adoption  by  the  East  Syrians. 

Summary 

This  chapter  is  concerned  with  the  preparation  of  the  Nes- 
torian  sect,  with  those  people  who  later  became  Nestorians,  in 
their  earlier  Catholic  period.  These  are  the  people  of  Eastern 
Syria.  They  are  Semites  by  blood  and  language,  but  have  been 
bandied  about  by  many  foreign  Powers.  When  Christianity 
appears,  the  frontier  of  the  Roman  Empire  and  the  kingdom  of 
Persia  goes  through  their  land.  There  is  practically  unceasing 
war  between  these  two  Powers.  The  little  kingdom  of  Osroene 
(capital  Edessa)  keeps  its  independence  till  216,  then  is  conquered 
by  Rome.  Eventually  the  Moslems  come  (7th  century),  and 
sweep  away  both  the  old  rivals. 

The  first  centre  of  East  Syrian  Christianity  is  Edessa.  The 
faith  was  preached  here  already  in  the  2nd  century.  A  pretty 
legend  tells  of  a  correspondence  between  our  Lord  and  King 
Abgar  the  Black,  and  of  the  portrait  of  our  Lord  painted  by 
Abgar's  scribe.  Addai  is  the  traditional  Apostle  of  Edessa.  This 
city  then  becomes  naturally  the  Christian  metropolis  of  East  Syria. 
Bardesanes  the  Gnostic,  Tatian,  who  made  a  digest  of  the  Gospels, 
and  St.  Ephrem  of  Syria  are  the  best-known  names  in  its  history. 
From  Edessa  the  faith  spreads  to  Persia.  Tradition  gives  us  the 
name  of  Mari,  Addai's  disciple,  as  the  Apostle  of  Persia.  Afrahat, 
the  Persian  sage,  is  the  one  early  Father  of  this  missionary  Church. 

1  For  Yazdagird  II's  persecution  see  Labourt  :  op.  cit.  pp.  126-130  ; 
Wigram  :    op.  cit.  pp.  1 38-1 41. 

2  Babwai  or  Babai,  Greek  Bapa7os,  Babaeus. 


THE   EAST  SYRIAN   CHURCH  53 

In  the  4th  century,  Papa,  Bishop  of  the  Capital  (Seleucia-Ctesiphon), 
takes  the  first  step  towards  the  primacy  of  his  see.  Under  the 
Sassanid  kings,  especially  Shapur  II,  the  Persian  Church  is  fiercely 
persecuted.  Later  synods  confirm  Seleucia-Ctesiphon  as  metro- 
polis, and  at  last  in  424  the  way  is  prepared  for  the  heresy  which 
will  overwhelm  the  Persian  Church,  by  a  declaration  of  inde- 
pendence of  any  Western  authority. 


CHAPTER   III 


NESTORIANISM 


Nestorius  was  not  an  East  Syrian.  He  was  a  Greek-speaking 
Antiochene,  who  proclaimed  his  heresy  at  Constantinople.  He  had 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  Edessa  or  Persia ;  there  is  no  evidence 
that  he  could  even  speak  Syriac.1  It  seems,  then,  strange  that 
his  ideas,  denounced  and  rooted  out  in  their  home,  should  become 
the  official  form  of  East  Syrian  Christianity  for  so  many  centuries. 
What  is  the  special  attraction  of  Nestorianism  for  East  Syrians  ? 
Is  there  any  inherent  tendency  towards  "  dividing  Christ  "  in  the 
Edessene  mind  ?  Hardly.  We  shall  see  reasons  for  this  pheno- 
menon as  we  go  on.  Meanwhile,  here  are  two  points  to  note  at 
once  and  remember  throughout  :  (i)  the  acceptance  of  Nestori- 
anism in  the  East  and  in  Persia  was  very  largely  a  corollary  of 
its  rejection  by  the  Empire  ;  (2)  Monophysism,  the  extreme  con- 
trary heresy,  began  almost  as  soon  as  Nestorianism.  A  great 
deal  of  East  Syrian  Nestorianism  is  at  first  only  a  vehement  denial 
of  Monophysism.  In  Syria  these  two  often  seemed  the  only 
alternatives  between  which  a  man  must  choose.  During  the 
centuries  of  discussion  that  come  before  crystallization  in  two 
lifeless  heresies,  while  these  were  burning  questions  and  not  (as 
now)  the  mere  shibboleths  of  rival  "  nations,"  a  Nestorian 
considered  all  his  opponents  Monophysites,  a  Monophysite 
called  his  contradictor  a  Nestorian.  So  in  Syria  the  two 
heresies  struggled  and  argued,  while  far  away  to  the  West  the 
decrees  of  Chalcedon  obtained  without  question,  and  Rome 
1  He  speaks  and  writes  Greek  always. 


NESTORIANISM  55 

taught  the  faith  of  the  Apostles,  which  is  neither  Nestorianism 
nor  Monophysism.1 


1.  Nestorius  and  the  Council  of  Ephesus  (431) 

It  is  not  necessary  to  tell  yet  again  all  the  details  of  the  story 
of  Nestorius  and  his  heresy.  This  forms  a  prominent  chapter 
in  every  Church  history.  Our  purpose  is  rather  to  leave  the  main 
stream,  so  often  described,  to  explore  the  less-known  backwaters, 
namely,  these  schismatical  Churches  after  they  had  left  the 
Catholic  body,  during  the  long  centuries  they  have  lingered 
in  their  pathetic  isolation.  Still,  one  must  begin  somewhere  : 
we  can  hardly  do  so  otherwise  than  by  outlining  the  original 
Nestorian  story. 

The  story  of  a  heresy  is  that  of  certain  theological  ideas,  though 
often  other  factors  enter  into  it  very  considerably.2  We  must 
remember  that  these  two  great  heresies  of  the  5th  century,  Nes- 
torianism and  Monophysism,  together  make  up  one  story  ;  they 
are  one  controversy  about  the  nature  of  the  union  of  divinity  and 
humanity  in  Christ.  That  controversy  followed  the  Trinitarian 
discussion  (Arianism)  at  once.  At  its  head  stands  Apollinaris  of 
Laodicea  ;  St.  Athanasius  had  not  yet  done  with  the  Arians  when 
he  heard  of  and  refuted  Apollinaris. 

At  the  head  of  this  long  and  bitter  controversy  I  put  the  state- 
ment of  Mgr.  Duchesne  :  "  Since  the  curiosity  of  men  would 
investigate  the  mystery  of  Christ,  since  the  indiscretion  of  theo- 
logians laid  on  the  dissecting-table  the  Blessed  Saviour,  who  came 

1  E.g.  :  Joh.  i.  14  ;  i  Joh.  ii.  22  ;  iv.  3,  15  ;  Phil.  ii.  6-7  ;  Rom.  ix.  5  ; 
1  Cor.  ii.  8  ;  Acts  iii.  15,  deny  Nestorianism.  Luke  xxiv.  36  seq. ;  1  Tim.  ii. 
5  ;   1  Cor.  xv.  21,  22  ;   Heb.  iv.  15,  etc.,  deny  Monophysism. 

2  For  instance,  all  through  the  Nestorian  and  Monophysite  quarrel  there 
is  the  old  rivalry  between  Egypt  on  the  one  hand  and  Antioch  and  the 
East  on  the  other — Constantinople  generally  taking  sides  with  Antioch. 
So  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  who  deposed  Nestorius  (of  Antioch  and  Con- 
stantinople) at  Ephesus  in  431,  was  the  nephew,  pupil  and  successor  of 
Theophilus  of  Alexandria,  who  deposed  St.  John  Chrysostom  (of  Antioch 
and  Constantinople),  Nestorius's  predecessor,  at  the  Oak-tree  Synod  in  403. 
But  Rome,  in  spite  of  her  old  alliance  with  Alexandria,  kept  clear  of  this 
political  issue.  She  opposed  Alexandria  in  Theophilus's  time,  defended 
her  in  that  of  St.  Cyril,  opposed  her  again  when  Dioscor  took  up  and 
exaggerated  Cyril's  cause. 


56  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

to  be  the  object  of  our  love  and  of  our  imitation  rather  than  of 
our  philosophical  investigation,  at  least  this  investigation  should 
have  been  made  peaceably  by  men  of  approved  competence  and 
prudence,  far  from  the  quarrelsome  crowd.  The  contrary  happened. 
An  unloosing  of  religious  passion,  a  series  of  quarrels  between 
metropolitans,  of  rivalries  between  ecclesiastical  prelates,  of  noisy 
councils,  imperial  laws,  deprivements,  exiles,  riots,  schisms — these 
were  the  circumstances  under  which  Greek  theologians  studied  the 
dogma  of  the  Incarnation.  And  if  we  look  for  the  result  of  their 
work,  we  see  at  the  end  of  the  story  the  Eastern  Church  incurably 
divided,  the  Christian  Empire  broken  up,  the  successors  of  Moham- 
med crushing  under  foot  Syria  and  Egypt.  This  was  the  price  of 
those  metaphysical  exercises."  x 

Let  us  also  notice  this  :  supposing  there  had  been  no  such 
discussion,  supposing  we  could  entirely  forget  the  storms  that 
raged  around  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon,  any  reasonable  person  now 
would  admit  that  the  Catholic  solution  is  the  only  possible  one, 
on  the  basis  of  the  divinity  of  our  Lord.  Jesus  Christ  is  God 
and  man.  That  is  the  old  faith  held  in  peace  by  the  Christian 
commonwealth  long  before  these  fatal  discussions  began.  "  The 
Word  was  God.  The  Word  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  amongst 
us."  It  follows,  then,  inevitably  that  in  him  divinity  and 
humanity  both  exist,  "  in  whom  dwells  all  the  fulness  of  divinity 
in  the  body."2  That  was  enough  for  earlier  generations.  But, 
if  the  prying  Greek  philosopher  must  ask  further,  what  then  ? 
Plainly  that  these  two,  divinity  and  humanity,  are  as  intimately 
joined  as  they  can  be  without  destroying  each  other.  They  are  as 
intimately  joined  as  they  can  be.  There  is  only  one  Jesus  Christ. 
He,  the  same  he,  died  on  the  cross  who  reigned  with  the  Father 
before  all  ages  ;  the  Jews  "crucified  the  Lord  of  Glory."3  He, 
the  same  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  born  of  Mary,  said  :  "  Before 
Abraham  was  made,  I  am."4  To  divide  our  Lord,  then,  into  two 
destroys  the  whole  idea  of  who  he  is.  If  there  were  two,  the 
Lord  of  Glory  would  not  have  been  crucified,  he  (the  same  Jesus) 
would  not  himself  be  God  and  man  ;  there  would  be  he  who  is 
God,  and  (another  person)  he  who  is  man.     Shall  we  say  that  the 

1  Histoire  ancienne  de  l'£glise  (Paris,  1910),  iii.  323-324. 

2  Col.  ii.  9.  3  1  Cor.  ii.  8.  4  Joh.  viii.  58. 


NESTORIANISM  57 

Word  of  God  dwelt  in  Jesus  ?  No,  because  then  Jesus  would 
be  not  the  Word,  but  only  the  dwelling-place  of  the  Word.  The 
Holy  Ghost  dwells  in  us  ; x  what  man  dares  say  that  he  is  the 
Holy  Ghost  ?  But  Christ  is  "  God  above  all,  blessed  for  ever."2 
So  there  is  one  Christ,  God  and  man,  having  Godhead  and 
manhood  in  one,  joined  in  one,  with  no  division  or  separation. 

Can  one  go  too  far  in  this  direction  ?  Is  there  any  conceivable 
limit  to  the  close  unity  of  our  Lord's  Godhead  and  manhood  ? 
Yes  ;  however  closely  joined  they  are,  we  must  not  conceive 
these  two  as  fused  by  a  kind  of  amalgamation  into  one  new 
substance  ;  because  then  both,  or  at  least  one,  would  cease  to 
exist.  If  you  combine  oxygen  and  hydrogen  to  make  water, 
what  results  is  neither  oxygen  nor  hydrogen  but  a  new  substance, 
water.  So  our  Lord's  divinity  and  humanity  both  would  cease 
to  be,  forming  some  new  impossible  thing  that  is  neither  divinity 
nor  humanity.  Instead  of  having  both,  he  would  have  neither  ; 
he  would  be  neither  God  nor  man.  The  Monophysite  rather 
conceived  one  as  absorbed,  not  both.  The  divinity  in  this  idea 
remained  unchanged,  but  the  humanity  was  absorbed  into  it, 
the  human  nature  was,  so  to  speak,  swamped,  lost  in  the  infinite 
ocean  of  divinity.  Then  our  Lord  would  have  no  true  humanity  ; 
he  would  not  be  really  man.  All  his  human  life,  his  birth,  pain, 
death,  would  be  a  mere  appearance,  an  illusion,  a  fraud — as  the 
old  Docetes  had  imagined.  No ;  both  divinity  and  humanity 
remain  real,  essentially  different,  though  joined  so  closely  in  one 
Jesus  Christ.  We  come,  then,  exactly  to  the  faith  of  Chalcedon  : 
"  one  and  the  same  Christ,  the  only-begotten  Lord,  in  two  natures 
unconfused,  unchanged,  undivided,  inseparable  .  .  .  keeping  the 
property  of  each  nature  in  one  person."  3  In  other  words,  if  our 
Lord  is  really  God  and  man,  he  is  one  person  (one  single  individual) 
in  two  natures,  that  of  God  and  that  of  man.  Is  this  the  pre- 
judice of  a  modern  person  who  is  anxious  to  avoid  the  pitfalls  of 
Nestorius  and  Eutyches  ?  I  cannot  conceive  how  it  is  possible  to 
describe  otherwise  that  Jesus  Christ  is  God  and  man.  It  seems 
(supposing  that  one  does  not  refuse  to  discuss  the  question  alto- 
gether) the  only  possible  way  of  saying  it  ;  and  just  this  is  the 

1   1  Cor.  viii.  19  ;   iii.  16  ;   2  Cor.  vi.  16.  2  Rom.  ix.  5. 

3  Denzinger,  No.  148. 


58  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

faith  of  the  Catholic  Church.1  This  exposition  of  the  principle 
should  be  a  useful  reminder  that  after  the  bitter  controversies  of 
the  5th  century,  after  all  the  mutual  accusations,  the  unholy  vio- 
lence and  unchristian  methods  of  that  time,  the  Catholic  Church 
finally  settled  down  in  possession  of  the  obviously  right  solution, 
the  one  to  which  a  reasonable  man  must  come  in  any  case.  Un- 
happily, the  issue  did  not  seem  so  clear  then.  Greek  philoso- 
phical terms — essence,  hypostasis,  person — are  hurled  about  by 
people  who  use  them  in  different  meanings  ;  the  confusion  becomes 
still  greater  when  even  more  difficult  Syriac  words  take  their  place ; 
we  have  the  spectacle  of  a  vast  amount  of  energy  (which  might 
have  been  so  much  better  spent)  used  in  deposing  bishops,  appeal- 
ing to  Caesar,  raising  an  appalling  turmoil  with  anathemas  and 
counter-anathemas,  all  about  an  issue  that  ought  not  really  to 
have  caused  any  trouble  at  all. 

The  question  of  Nestorianism  and  Monophysism  is  often  re- 
presented as  one  between  the  schools  of  Antioch  and  Alexandria. 
Antioch  was  the  school  of  literal  interpretation  of  the  Bible  ;  2 
so,  naturally,  it  insisted  on  our  Lord's  real  humanity.  This 
would  perhaps  lead  to  making  him  a  merely  human  person,  in 
whom  the  Word  of  God  dwelt ;  that  is  Nestorianism.  Alexandria 
was  the  centre  of  the  defence  of  his  divinity  (St.  Athanasius) ; 
so  at  Alexandria  the  divinity  would  be  insisted  on,  till  at  last 
his  humanity  would  be  conceived  as  lost  in  it ;  so  we  have 
Monophysism.3  The  beginning  of  the  whole  question  is  in 
the  heresy  of  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea  (f  c.  390).  He  is  the  first 
cause  of  all  these  Christological  speculations.  It  was  almost  in- 
evitable that  during  the  Arian  controversy  people  should  begin 
to  ask  how  we  are  to  conceive  God  the  Son  as  being  both  God  and 
man.  Apollinaris  imagined  an  ingenious  answer.  Starting  from 
the  Platonic  idea  that  man  consists  of  three  elements,  body  (o-w//.a), 
soul  (i/^x?7,  which  gives  us  life  and  all  we  have  in  common  with 

1  Harnack  thinks  that  "  the  conception  of  a  divine  nature  in  Christ  leads 
either  to  Docetism  or  to  a  double  personality  "  (Lehrbuch  der  Dogmen- 
geschichte,  Tubingen,  1910  ;  iii.  p.  277,  n.  3).  Nineteen  centuries  of  Chris- 
tian theology  have  not  yet  felt  the  force  of  this  dilemma. 

2  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  p.  18. 

3  So,  e.g.,  Dr.  W.  F.  Adeney  :  The  Greek  and  Eastern  Churches,  p.  94, 
and  many  others. 


NESTORIANISM  59 

brutes  and  plants),  and  then  spirit  (Trvevfia,  our  special  prerogative, 
which  gives  us  intellect  and  will),  he  explained  that  in  Christ  there 
are  a  human  body  and  soul,  but  that  the  divinity  takes  the  place 
of  the  spirit.  Nearly  all  the  Fathers  of  the  4th  century  enter  the 
lists  against  this  theory.  Apart  from  its  questionable  basis  of 
three  principles  in  man,  it  denies  to  our  Lord  an  element  of  perfect 
human  nature.  But  he  was  like  us  in  all  things,  except  sin ; 1 
perfect  God  and  perfect  man.  St.  Athanasius  (f  373)  wrote  a 
treatise  against  Apollinaris.2  A  phrase  attributed  to  him,  but 
apparently  really  of  Apollinaris  himself,  "  One  nature  incarnate 
of  the  Word  of  God,"3  afterwards  became  a  kind  of  watchword, 
first  to  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  then  to  Monophysites.  Its  ortho- 
doxy depends,  of  course  (as  in  so  many  of  these  declarations),  on 
the  sense  in  which  "  nature  "  (<£vo-is)  is  used. 

In  Syria  there  was  also  a  great  opposition  to  Apollinarism.  This 
took  the  form  of  insisting  on  our  Lord's  humanity.  He  is  perfect 
man,  has  all  that  we  have,  except  sin.  Now  it  seems  that  the 
remote  origin  of  Nestorianism  is  to  be  found  in  anti-Apollinarist 
zeal  in  Syria.  Such  an  insistence  might  easily  become  an  assertion 
that  Christ  had  a  human  personality  as  well  as  his  divine  person- 
ality— was  two  persons,  a  man  and  the  Son  of  God  joined  in  some 
kind  of  moral  union,  the  Son  of  God  dwelling  in  a  man.  At  any 
rate,  the  Nestorians,  constantly  reproach  their  opponents  with 
being  Apollinarists,  and  the  opposite  heresy,  Monophysism, 
really  is  a  kind  of  Apollinarism.  It  gathered  up  what  was  left 
of  the  Apollinaris t  sect. 

Two  Syrian  doctors,  masters  of  Nestorius,  are  always  quoted 
as  the  remote  source  of  his  heresy.  They  are  Diodore  of  Tarsus 
and  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.  Diodore,  founder  of  the  Antiochene 
dogmatic  school,  was  a  contempory  of  Apollinaris  and  one  of  his 
chief  opponents.    First  priest  at  Antioch,  then  Bishop  and  Metro- 

1  Heb.  iv.  15. 

2  Contra  Apollinarium,  lib.  ii.  (P.G.  xxvi.  1093-1166).  For  Apollinaris 
see  H.  Lietzmann  :  Apollinaris  von  Laodicea  u.  seine  Schule  (Tubingen, 
1904  ;  Texte  u.  Unters.  i.)  ;  G.  Voisin  :  L'Apollinarisme  (Louvain,  1901)  ; 
Hastings'  Encyclopedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics  (Edinburgh,  1908),  i.  606-608. 

3  Mia  Qihtis  rov  fltov  Aoyov  (reaapKwuevr).  It  occurs  in  the  probably 
pseudo-Athanasian  work,  "  Of  the  Incarnation  of  the  Word  of  God."  See 
Hefeie-Leclercq  :    Histoire  des  Conciles,  ii.  224. 


60  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

politan  of  Tarsus  in  Cilicia  (378-c.  394),  he  was  a  famous  defender 
of  Nicene  orthodoxy  during  the  Arian  troubles.  But  in  discussing 
the  union  of  the  consubstantial  Logos  with  the  man  Jesus  Christ, 
he  evolved  what  we  should  describe  as  pure  Nestorianism.  There 
are  two  persons,  the  Logos  (Son  of  God)  and  the  Son  of  David. 
Not  the  Logos,  but  the  Son  of  David,  was  born  of  Mary.  The 
Son  of  David  is  the  temple  of  the  Son  of  God.  The  mystery  of 
the  Incarnation  consists  in  the  assumption  of  a  perfect  man  by  the 
Logos.  The  Logos  dwells  in  this  man  as  in  a  temple  or  a  garment.1 
These  ideas  then  became  the  usual  ones  in  this  school  of  Antioch. 
Its  greatest  representative,  Theodore,  took  them  up  and  defended 
them.  Theodore,  an  Antiochene  by  birth,  became  Bishop  of 
Mopsuestia  2  in  392,  and  died  in  428. 3  He  was  an  old  and  faithful 
friend  of  St.  John  Chrysostom.  His  "  Nestorianism  "  is  open  and 
avowed.  The  ideas  of  Diodore  reappear  in  his  works  quite  plainly : 
the  man  Jesus  is  only  the  temple  of  the  indwelling  Logos,  and  so 
on.  He  even  anticipated  the  very  point  around  which  the  quarrel 
of  Nestorius  turned,  by  objecting  to  the  word  Ozotokos*  For 
all  that,  he  is  one  of  the  greatest  exegetes  in  Greek  theology,  and 
his  influence,  especially  in  Syria,  was  enormous.5 

We  see  then  that,  as  often  happens,  Nestorius  only  gave  his 
name  to  a  heresy  which  existed  before  his  time,  which  he  himself 
had  learned  from  his  masters.  His  opponents  knew  this.  Cyril 
sees  Diodore  and  Theodore  behind  Nestorius  clearly,  and  insists 
continually  on  their  condemnation.6  So  also  the  later  Mono- 
physites  recognize  in  these  doctors  the  source  and  origin  of  the 
doctrine  (in  its  extreme  form)  which  they  abhor.7     On  the  other 

1  Marius  Mercator  (P.L.  xlviii.  11 46-1 147),  and  Leontius  Byzantinus  : 
adv.  Incorrupt,  et  Nest.  (P.G.  lxxxvi.  1385-1389),  quote  excerpts  from 
Diodore  containing  these  views. 

2  A  small  town  in  Cilicia,  about  twenty-three  miles  east  of  Adana. 

3  Theodoret  :   Hist.  Eccl.  v.  39  (P.G.  lxxxii.  1277). 

4  Leontius  Byz.  :  op.  cit.  hi.  10  (P.G.  lxxxvi.  1364)  ;  Cyril  Alex.  :  Ep.  69 
(P.G.  lxxvii.  340). 

5  For  the  Christology  of  Antioch,  of  Diodore  and  Theodore,  see  Harnack  : 
Lehrbuch  der  Dogmengeschichte  (Tubingen,  1909),  ii.  338-349  ;  Tixeront  : 
Histoire  des  dogmes  (Paris,  1909),  ii-  1 12-130. 

6  E.g.  Ep.  45  (P.G.  lxxvii.  229)  ;   Ep.  69  {ib.  340)  ;   Ep.  60  (ib.  341). 

7  The  person  and  works  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  formed  the  first  of 
the  famous  "  Three  Chapters  "  condemned  by  Justinian  to  please  the 
Monophysites,  and  by  the  Second  Council  of  Constantinople  in  553. 


NESTORIANISM  61 

hand,  it  was  especially  the  popularity  of  these  two  which  caused 
the  spread  of  Nestorianism  in  East  Syria.  Of  Nestorius  himself 
the  theologians  of  Edessa  and  Nisibis  knew  little  ;  nor  did  they 
care  much  about  him.  But  in  the  movement  against  him,  in  the 
decrees  of  Ephesus,  they  saw  an  attack  against  their  revered 
masters,  Diodore  and  Theodore  ;  they  were  (rightly)  conscious  of 
defending  these.  Often  in  later  ages  the  Nestorians  have  protested 
that  they  are  not  the  school  of  Nestorius,  they  are  the  school  of 
Diodore  and  Theodore,  of  which  Nestorius  was  also  a  pupil  They 
stand  for  the  old  school  of  Antioch  ;  it  is  a  mere  coincidence  that 
one  disciple  of  that  school  once  became  Patriarch  of  Constanti- 
nople, and  there  got  into  trouble  with  Cyril  of  Alexandria  and 
his  council  at  Ephesus.  Still,  among  the  Nestorians  "Theodore 
the  Interpreter  "  is  the  honoured  master  against  whom  they  will 
allow  no  accusation. 

Nestorius  came  to  Constantinople  from  Antioch.  He  brought 
with  him  the  ideas  of  his  native  city  ;  it  was  the  clash  of  these 
with  the  traditions  of  Alexandria  x  that  caused  the  Nestorian  con- 
troversy. Now  that  we  have  cleared  the  ground,  we  may  pass  more 
quickly  over  the  well-known  incidents  of  the  story.  Nestorius  had 
been  a  monk  at  the  monastery  of  Euprepios  ;  then  deacon,  priest 
and  preacher  at  the  chief  church  of  Antioch.  He  had  a  beautiful 
voice,  was  a  famous  preacher,  and  was  known  as  an  ardent  disciple 
of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.  When  Sisinios  I  of  Constantinople 
(425-427)  died,  Nestorius's  already  great  reputation  secured  to 
him  the  succession  of  the  Imperial  See.  The  people  thought  they 
had  secured  from  Antioch  a  second  Chrysostom.  Hardly  was  he 
consecrated  when  he  showed  great  zeal  against  heretics — Arians, 
Macedonians,  Novatians,  Quartodecimans,  and  such  like, — little 
thinking  that  his  own  name  was  to  go  down  to  history  as  that  of 
a  notorious  arch-heretic.  Already  he  had  managed  to  offend 
many  people 2  when  the  storm  began.  A  priest,  Anastasius, 
brought  by  Nestorius  from  Antioch,  preached  against  our  Lady's 

1  St.  Cyril  was  very  conscious  that  he  only  maintained  and  applied  the 
principles  of  his  great  predecessor  Athanasius  (328-373).  So  he  always 
appeals  to  and  quotes  Athanasius. 

2  Nestorius's  tactlessness  was  one  cause  of  his  fall.  He  had  offended  the 
Pope  (St.  Celestine  I,  422-432),  by  receiving  the  Pelagian  leaders  and 
demanding  explanations  of  their  condemnation. 


62  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

title  0eoTOKO9.  His  arguments  produced  trouble  in  the  city ; 
Nestorius  defended  him.  The  title  "  Mother  of  God  "  was  by  no 
means  new.  St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzos  (f390)  particularly  had 
said  :  "If  anyone  does  not  receive  the  Holy  Mary  as  Mother  of 
God,  he  is  separated  from  the  Godhead."  x  It  was  well  suited  to 
be  the  test  of  belief  in  our  Lord  as  one  person,  and  it  became, 
as  everyone  knows,  the  immediate  object  of  this  controversy. 
The  sermons  in  which  Nestorius  attacks  this  word  show  his 
heresy,  his  assertion  of  two  persons  (the  mere  man  Jesus  who 
was  born  of  Mary,  and  the  Word  of  God  who  dwelled  in  him), 
plainly.2 

The  dispute  between  the  attackers  and  defenders  of  the  word 
theotokos  now  became  the  chief  question  at  Constantinople.  Soon 
it  spread  throughout  the  East.  It  came  to  Egypt  and  disturbed 
the  peace  of  the  Alexandrine  Patriarchate.  St.  Cyril  of  Alexan- 
dria (412-444),  nephew  and  successor  of  the  Theophilus  (385-412) 
who  had  been  St.  John  Chrysostom's  enemy,  predecessor  of  the 
future  Monophysite  leader  Dioscor  (444-451),  appears  as  the 
champion  of  the  Theot6kos,  the  chief  enemy  of  Nestorius.  In  his 
Paschal  homily  of  429  he  explained  that  the  Blessed  Virgin  is 
Mother  of  God,3  and  then  discussed  the  question  again  very 
clearly  in  a  letter  to  the  monks  of  the  Nitrian  desert.  So  far  he 
refuted  Nestorius' s  heresy  without  naming  him.  Nestorius  made 
one  of  his  priests  answer  this  letter,  and  Cyril  wrote  to  Nestorius 
blaming  him  for  the  disturbance,  telling  him  that  if  only  he  would 
cease  attacking  our  Lady's  title  peace  would  soon  be  restored. 
Nestorius  answered  back,  and  other  circumstances  helped  to 
aggravate  the  quarrel.4  Cyril's  second  letter  to  Nestorius 
(Feb.  430)  is  the  classical  statement  of  the  Catholic  attitude  on 
this  subject.     Dom  H.  Leclercq  describes  it  as  "  Saint  Cyril's 

1  Ep.  101  (P.G.  xxxvii.  177). 

2  Translated  by  Marius  Mercator,  P.L.  xlviii.  699-862.  See  quotations 
in  Hefele-Leclercq  :   Hist,  des  Conciles,  11.  i.  pp.  240-247. 

3  Horn,  pasch.  13  (P.G.  lxxvii.  768-790).  People  who  think  that  there 
is  some  subtle  difference  between  "  Qioroxos  "  and  "  Mother  of  God  " 
should  notice  that  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  controversy  Cyril  uses  the 
words  "  M-yT-qp  6eov  "  as  equivalent  to  "  6cot6kos  "  (ib.  777).  We  may 
surely  assume  that  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  understood  these  words. 

4  Nestorius  undertook  the  defence  of  certain  excommunicate  Alexandrine 
clerks  who  had  come  to  Constantinople. 


NESTORIANISM  63 

masterpiece  "  ; 1  it  became  the  most  important  document  in 
all  the  later  controversy.2 

Nestorius  had  already  written  to  the  Pope  (St.  Celestin  I, 
422-432)  about  the  affair.  Cyril  wrote  too,  exposing  all  that  had 
happened  and  enclosing  a  number  of  documents  as  evidence.3 
Both  sides  were  now  heated  by  the  quarrel  and  were  saying  strong 
things  about  each  other.  Cyril  also  wrote  to  the  Emperor  (Theo- 
dosius  II,  408-450),  to  his  wife  and  sister.  The  Pope  in  a  synod 
held  in  August  430  decided  that  Nestorius's  teaching  was  heretical ; 
he  must  retract  in  ten  days  or  be  deposed.  Cyril  was  to  carry  out 
this  sentence.4  However,  the  dispute  continues,  and  is  further 
embittered.  Cyril  in  a  synod  at  Alexandria  (430)  drew  up  twelve 
anathemas  against  doctrines  held  by  Nestorians  :  "If  anyone 
does  not  acknowledge  that  Emmanuel  is  truly  God,  that  therefore 
the  Holy  Virgin  is  Mother  of  God,  because  she  gave  birth,  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh,  to  the  Word  begotten  of  God  the  Father,  let  him 
be  anathema,"  and  so  on.5  Nestorius  answered  with  twelve 
counter-anathemas.6  In  many  of  these  he  denounces  opinions 
which  he  attributes  falsely  to  Cyril. 

At  last  the  Emperor  decided  to  summon  a  great  council  to 
settle  the  matter  finally.  He  was  inclined  towards  Nestorius, 
but  saw  that  nothing  but  so  extreme  a  measure  as  a  general 
council  could  pacify  the  parties.  It  was  to  meet  on  Whitsunday 
(June  7)  431,  at  Ephesus.  This  is  the  third  general  council 
(Ephesus,  431)  which  condemned  Nestorius.  Nestorius  arrived 
first  with  sixteen  bishops  and  many  soldiers.  Then  came  Cyril 
with  fifty  bishops.  Memnon  of  Ephesus  had  already  assembled 
his  forty  suffragans  and  twelve  Pamphylian  bishops.     Juvenal  of 

1  Hist,  des  Conciles,  n.  i.  p.  253. 

2  It  is  in  P.G.  lxxvii.  43-50  ;   or  see  the  summary  in  Hefele-Leclercq,  I.e. 

3  Ep.  11  (P.G.  lxxvii.  79-86)  ;   Hefele-Leclercq:  op.  cit.  pp.  256-257. 

4  From  this  time  Cyril  considers  himself  the  Pope's  representative  in  the 
East.  He  is  formally  recognized  as  such  by  the  Council  of  Ephesus  ;  Mansi 
iv.  1 123  :  "  The  Alexandrine  Cyril,  who  also  holds  the  place  of  Celestin, 
most  holy  and  most  blessed  Archbishop  of  the  Roman  Church."  The 
Pope's  letter  had  explicitly  given  to  Cyril  "  the  authority  of  our  See." 
P.G.   lxxviii.  93. 

5  The  twelve  anathemas  are  quoted  and  explained  in  Hefele-Leclercq  : 
op.  cit.  11.  i.  pp.  269-278. 

6  lb.  pp.  280-284. 


64  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Jerusalem  and  Flavian  of  Thessalonica  arrived  a  few  days  late.  On 
June  22  one  hundred  and  ninety-eight  bishops  began  the  council. 
But  John  of  Antioch  and  his  suffragans  had  not  yet  arrived.  The 
fact  that  they  did  not  wait  for  him  is  the  great  difficulty  of  the 
story  of  this  council.  It  is  said  that  Cyril  knew  he  was  friendly 
to  Nestorius  and  hurried  on  the  proceedings,  so  as  to  have  Nes- 
torius  condemned  before  he  came.  On  the  other  hand,  John 
had  written  a  friendly  letter  to  Cyril ;  two  of  his  suffragans  had 
hurried  forward  and  brought  a  message  that  the  council  was  not 
to  wait  for  him,  but  was  to  begin  and  do  its  best  without  him.1 
Perhaps  Cyril  thought  that  John  delayed  on  purpose,  so  as  not  to 
be  present  at  his  friend's  humiliation.  And  they  had  already 
waited  sixteen  days  for  him.  Cyril  presided,  expressly  as  Papal 
legate.2  The  Pope  had  sent  other  representatives  to  Ephesus — two 
bishops,  Arcadius  and  Proiectus,  and  a  deacon,  Philip,  with  orders 
to  follow  Cyril's  guidance  in  everything  ;  but  they  did  not  arrive 
till  the  second  session.  The  Emperor's  Commissioner  Candidian 
wanted  to  wait  for  John  of  Antioch  ;  but  the  Fathers  rejected  his 
proposal.  The  first  session  was  held  in  the  famous  double  church 
of  Ephesus.  Nestorius  refused  to  appear.  Cyril's  second  letter 
to  him  was  read  and  judged  conformable  to  the  faith  of  Nicaea.  A 
great  number  of  texts  of  Fathers  were  read,  and  then  passages 
from  Nestorius  which  contradicted  them.  The  Pope's  condemna- 
tion of  Nestorius  was  read  too.  Nestorius  was  condemned  and 
deposed.  Candidian,  who  had  come  from  the  Emperor  hoping  to 
save  Nestorius,  was  much  disappointed. 

Then,  on  June  26,  the  caravan  of  John  of  Antioch  with  his 
thirty  bishops  rolled  into  the  streets  of  Ephesus.  The  Council  at 
once  sent  to  him  to  inform  him  of  what  had  been  done  ;  but  now 
he  refused  to  have  anything  to  do  with  it.  With  Nestorius, 
Candidian,  and  altogether  forty-three  bishops  he  holds  a  rival 
synod  at  his  own  house.  This  rival  synod  excommunicates 
Cyril  and  his  followers  ;  these  denounce  John  and  his.  Both 
sides  appeal  to  the  Pope  and  Emperor,  and  a  long  quarrel  follows. 

1  lb.  p.  296.  The  fact  that  John  of  Antioch  had  begged  the  synod  not 
to  wait  for  his  arrival,  but  to  begin  without  him,  is  of  great  importance  in 
judging  the  Council  of  Ephesus.  It  is  examined  and  proved  by  many 
texts  in  M.  Jugie  :    Nestorius,  p.  49. 

2  Above,  p.  63,  n.  4. 


NESTORIANISM  65 

I  pass  over  the  details  of  this  quarrel.  The  Emperor  tried  to 
reconcile  the  parties  ;  then  affected  to  depose  John,  Nestorius, 
Cyril  and  Memnon  of  Ephesus.  Eventually  he  was  persuaded 
that  Cyril  was  right,  he  let  him  go  back  to  Egypt,  and  allowed 
a  new  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  Maximian  (431-434),  to  be 
ordained  in  place  of  the  deposed  Nestorius.1  This  means  the 
triumph  of  St.  Cyril's  theology  in  the  great  Church.  From  now 
Nestorianism  is  a  heresy  condemned  by  a  general  council,2  soon 
to  become  the  teaching  of  a  schismatical  sect. 

2.  The  End  of  Nestorius.     Was  he  a  Heretic  ? 

After  his  deposition  Nestorius  practically  disappears  from 
history.  In  435  he  was  banished  to  a  distant  monastery  at  the 
bottom  of  the  Libyan  desert.  Here  he  spent  his  last  years 
writing  his  defence  under  a  pseudonym  ;  and  he  died  on  the  eve 
of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.3 

Among  Protestant  writers  there  is  often  a  tendency  to  re- 
habilitate people  whom  the  Church  has  condemned,  to  declare 
that  an  alleged  heretic  was  grossly  misrepresented,  was  really  a 
person  of  irreproachable  views  falsely  accused  of  heresy  because 
of  some  political  intrigue.  Of  no  one  has  this  been  said  so  persist- 
ently as  of  Nestorius.  His  defence  is  not  a  new  idea.  For  many 
years  it  has  been  the  fashion  either  to  ridicule  the  whole  contro- 
versy or  to  say  that  he  and  Cyril  really  agreed  entirely — the 
question  was  only  one  of  words ;   or  that  what  Cyril  taught  was 

1  There  were  altogether  seven  sessions  of  Cyril's  council  at  Ephesus. 
In  the  second  the  Roman  legates  appeared  and  made  the  famous  declara- 
tion about  the  primacy  which  was  accepted  by  the  council  (Orth.  Eastern 
Church,  p.  77).  All  the  details  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus  will  be  found  at 
length  in  Hefele-Leclercq  :  Hist,  des  Conciles,  it.  i.  pp.  295-377.  The 
story  of  Nestorius  is  summarized  by  Mgr.  Duchesne  :  Hist,  ancienne  de 
I'Eglise,  in.  chap.  x.  pp.  313-388. 

2  Whatever  one  may  think  about  the  absence  of  John  of  Antioch  when 
Nestorius  was  condemned,  taking  all  bishops  at  Ephesus  together,  there 
was  an  overwhelming  majority  for  St.  Cyril — 198  against  43.  Even  if 
John  had  come  to  Cyril's  council  and  had  done  all  he  could,  he  could  not 
have  saved  Nestorius. 

3  The  date  and  place  of  his  death  are  uncertain — perhaps  June  451,  at 
Panopolis.  His  place  of  exile  was  changed  several  times.  For  the  last 
years  of  Nestorius  see  M.  Jugie  :    Nestorius,  56-62. 

5 


66  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

exactly  the  same  thing  as  the  later  Monophysite  heresy.1  Then, 
it  is  alleged,  the  real  reason  of  all  this  controversy  was  Cyril's 
jealousy  of  Nestorius  ;  it  is  one  incident  in  the  long  rivalry 
between  Alexandria  and  Constantinople  (and  Antioch).  Nes- 
torius's  disgrace  and  deposition  is  merely  a  point  gained  for 
Alexandria.  Cyril  deposing  Nestorius  is  a  parallel  case  to 
Theophilus  deposing  St.  John  Chrysostom  at  the  Oak  Tree  Synod 
in  403,  and  again  to  Dioscor  of  Alexandria  deposing  Flavian  of 
Constantinople  at  Ephesus  in  449  (p.  174) ;  only,  the  first  and  third 
times  Alexandria  failed. 

These  ideas  are  not  new  :  indeed,  the  defence  of  Nestorius  has 
long  been  almost  a  commonplace  of  Protestant  Church  history.2 
They  have  received  a  new  impetus,  and  have  become  one  of  the 
questions  of  the  day,  by  the  discovery  and  publication  of  Nes- 
torius's  apology.  In  exile  at  the  end  of  his  life  he  wrote  this  and 
called  it  The  Book  3  ofHeraklides  of  Damascus.  Why  Heraklides  ? 
Because  Nestorius' s  own  name  was  dangerous  ;  his  works  were  to 
be  destroyed  or  burnt.  He  hoped,  then,  under  this  pseudonym 
to  pass  his  apology.  He  wrote  in  Greek.  The  original  is  lost ; 
but  a  Syriac  version  is  preserved  in  the  house  of  the  Nestorian 
Patriarch.  This  is  what  has  lately  been  published.  The  first 
we  heard  of  it  was  in  a  book  by  Mr.  Bethune  Baker,  Nestorius  and 
his  Teaching,  a  fresh  examination  of  the  evidence.*  In  this  he 
did  not  publish  the  whole  text,  but  used  a  copy  procured  by  Mr. 
D.  Jenks,  formerly  of  the  Anglican  Mission  at  Urmi  (translated  by 
a  friend),  from  which  he  makes  extracts.  On  the  strength  of  this, 
Mr.  Baker  produces  an  apology  of  Nestorius.  Admitting  the 
dogmatic  decrees  of  Ephesus,  he  claims  that  Nestorius  did  not  hold 
anything  really  opposed  to  them.     What  Nestorius  attacked  was 

1  This  is  the  best  of  these  ideas.  Certainly  you  may  slide  easily  from 
Cyril  into  Monophysism.  The  later  Monophysites  thought  they  were 
merely  continuing  his  war  against  Nestorius. 

2  So  Harnack  :  Lehrbuch  der  Dogmengeschichte  (4th  ed.,  Tubingen),  ii. 
339-368.  He  thinks  that  Cyril's  theology  is  really  Monophysite  or  Apolli- 
narist  (pp.  352-355)- 

3  Mr.  Bethune  Baker  and  others  call  it  The  Bazaar  of  Heraclides.  Fr. 
Bejan,  who  first  edited  the  Syriac  text,  and  M.  Nau,  who  first  translated 
it,  point  out  that  this  is  a  mistake.  The  Syriac  word  Tegurtd  corresponds 
to  Greek  Trpay/uLaTeia,  meaning  affairs,  treatise,  book. 

4  Cambridge,  1908. 


NESTORIANISM  67 

Monophysism  ;  he  was  completely  in  accord  with  the  faith  of 
Chalcedon.  And  the  technical  terms  used  were  ambiguous, 
understood  differently  on  either  side.  This  theory  made  some 
commotion.  At  first  there  were  only  Mr.  Baker's  deductions 
from  the  book  as  matter  of  discussion.  Now  the  whole  original 
text  is  published  in  Syriac  by  Fr.  Bejan,  a  Lazarist  missionary 
and  recognized  authority  on  Syriac  literature,1  and  in  a  French 
translation  by  M.  F.  Nau,  with  introduction  and  notes,2  so  that 
anyone  can  test  Mr.  Baker's  conclusions  for  himself.  The 
conclusion  will  be,  as  both  Nau  and  Bejan  say,  that  this  new 
defence  of  Nestorius  is  a  failure  as  much  as  the  older  ones.  The 
Book  of  Heraklides  shows  its  author  to  hold  just  what  his  enemies 
said  he  held  ;  whatever  may  be  said  about  the  personal  treatment 
of  Nestorius  by  the  Fathers  of  Ephesus,  they  did  not  misrepresent 
his  doctrine  ;  if  we  accept  the  faith  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon, 
then  Nestorius  was  a  heretic. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  whole 
question  depends  on  what  he  says  in  the  Heraklides  book.  That 
was  written  at  the  end  of  his  life,  long  after  Ephesus.  We  have 
plenty  of  authentic  earlier  works  by  Nestorius  3  in  which  his  heresy 
is  abundantly  evident.  The  Council  judged  and  condemned  him 
on  these  ;  it  could  not  foresee  what  he  would  write  years  later. 
So,  even  if  his  Book  of  Heraklides  were  unimpeachable,  we  should 
only  conclude  that  he  had  modified  his  doctrine  at  the  end  of  his 
life.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  confirms  what  he  had  said  earlier. 
Nor  is  the  whole  dispute  merely  a  quarrel  about  words.  It  is 
perfectly  true  that  technical  words,  especially  philosophical 
terms,  may  change  their  meaning  or  be  understood  by  different 
people  in  different  senses.  It  is  always  a  mistake  to  judge  a 
man's  theory  merely  by  the  technical  words  he  uses.  We  must 
study  his  context,  the  deductions  he  draws  from  them,  his  own 
explanations,  to  be  sure  of  what  he  means.  Nestorius  is  a  heretic, 
not  because  he  speaks  of  two  hypostases,  or  even  of  two  prosopa, 
in  Christ,  but  because  he  explains  this  language  in  such  a  way  as 

1  Le  livre  d'Heraclide  de  Damas  (Paris,  iqio). 

2  Nestorius  :  le  livre  d'Heraclide  de  Damas  (Paris,  1910). 

3  Collected  by  Loofs  :  Nestoriana  (Halle  a.  S.,  1905) ;  to  these  add  the 
three  homilies  found  by  F.  Nau,  published  in  the  appendix  of  his  translation 
of  the  Book  of  Heraklides. 


68  THE  LESSER  EASTERN   CHURCHES 

to  make  clear  that  he  means  just  what  we  mean  by  two  persons, 
two  Christs — namely,  Jesus  Son  of  Mary,  and  the  Word  of  God  who 
dwelt  in  him. 

The  philosophical  terms  certainly  need  explanation ;  our 
judgement  as  to  their  correctness  will  depend  on  how  the  people 
who  use  them  do  explain  them.  Those  which  occur  in  this 
controversy  are  :  ova-La,  cfrvcns,  woo-rao-is,  7rp6o-(D7rov.  In  our 
later  scholastic  use  these  are  simple  enough.  OiWa  is  essence, 
<f>vo-L<;  is  nature,  viroo-rao-is  or  TTpoo-wirov  mean  person.  There- 
fore, in  our  Lord  we  see  two  natures  (or  essences)1 — that  is, 
two  ovo-lou,  two  <f>v<reis,2  but  one  person  (one  utto'o-too-is ,  one 
7rp6o-o}7rov) .  In  the  5th  century  it  was  not  quite  so  clear. 
OiWa  and  4>va-us  meant  the  same  thing,  normally  "essence  "  or 
"  nature/'  Yet  St.  Cyril  makes  the  phrase  "  one  incarnate 
nature  (/xta  ^vo-ts  o-co-apKwfievr})  of  the  Word  of  God  "  his  axiom. 
Was  he,  then,  a  Monophysite?  No,  because  the  Word  of  God 
has  one  nature  proper  to  himself,  one  infinite  divine  nature. 
And  that  nature  is  incarnate,  o-eo-apKco^vr},  made  flesh,  itself 
un destroyed — as  we  should  say,  assumes  a  human  nature.  St. 
Cyril  means  what  we  mean.  Then,  does  hypostasis  necessarily 
mean  person  ?  By  no  means.  The  Latin  persona  originally 
meant  an  actor's  mask  ;  3  then  the  part  you  play  in  a  drama,  as  we 
say  "dramatis  personam ";  then  the  part  you  play  in  life,  the 
responsible  individual  who  eats,  drinks,  studies,  marries  and  dies. 
When  there  is  a  collective  individuality  we  talk  about  a  "  persona 
moralis,"  as  in  the  case  of  a  corporation.  The  exact  Greek  equi- 
valent of  this  is  not  vivoo-rao-is  but  7rpoo-w7rov.4  <£ucns  (nature) 
and  7Tp6o-(i>7Tov  (person),  then,  are  fairly  clear.  Hypostasis 
is  one  of  those  words  which  lie  between  two  others  and  may 
be  understood  of  either.  Etymologically  it  is  nearer  to  ^vo-is. 
eY7rdcrTacrts  exactly  equals  the  Latin  substantia,  and  substance 
(in  scholastic  use)  is  nature.  Suppose,  then,  that  a  man  or  a 
school  of  philosophy  uses  <£wns  of  nature  in  general,  of  what  we 
should  call  the  "  universal,"  the  abstract  idea  of  humanity  or 

1  In  scholastic  language,  essence,  nature,  substance  are  the  same  thing. 

2  Or  dual  ?      Svo  ovaia,  8vo  <pvare*. 

3  The  thing  through  which  you  speak  or  shout  (personare) . 

4  Also  originally  an  actor's  mask  or  a  face. 


NESTORIANISM  69 

whatever  it  may  be  ;  and  uses  vttoo-tolo-ls  of  the  particular  con- 
crete nature  of  one  man.  Then  he  is  quite  right  in  saying  that 
our  Lord  had  two  hypostases.  He  had  two  individual  perfect 
natures,  in  either  of  which  nothing  was  wanting.  He  was  perfect 
God  and  perfect  man.  And  if  you  insist  very  much  on  his  man- 
hood as  complete  and  perfect,  if  you  are  specially  on  your  guard 
against  Docetism  or  Apollinarism,  you  will  perhaps  insist  that 
in  him,  besides  the  divinity,  there  was  a  second  human  hypostasis, 
meaning  a  complete  and  perfect  individual  (not  merely  abstract 
or  theoretical)  human  nature.  So  many  orthodox  Fathers  speak 
of  two  hypostases  in  our  Lord  ;  this  was  particularly  the  language 
of  Antioch  ;  Nestorius  might  have  said  that,  if  that  had  been  all, 
without  offence.  Eventually,  it  is  true,  hypostasis  was  con- 
sidered the  equivalent  of  the  Latin  persona  ;  so  that  now  the 
Orthodox  would  consider  it  as  scandalous  to  say  there  are  two 
hypostases  in  Christ  as  to  speak  of  his  one  <£iW  :  x  It  would  be 
much  more  difficult  to  excuse  Nestorius's  expression  :  two  prosopa 
in  our  Lord.  But,  even  here,  a  word  might  be  explained  away. 
It  is  his  perfectly  clear  explanation  of  what  he  means,  his  elaborate 
deductions  and  long  arguments,  that  show  him  to  be  a  heretic. 
First,  there  is  his  denial  of  the  title  deoroKos.  Mary  was  not 
Mother  of  God  ;  her  son  was  not  God  ;  he  was  a  man  in  whom 
God  dwelt.  So  also  Nestorius  refused  to  admit  such  phrases  as 
that  God  was  born,  God  suffered.2  He  defended  the  idea  of 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  that  necessarily  every  perfect  human 
nature  is  a  person,  a  man  ;  that  therefore  our  Lord's  humanity  was 
a  man,  distinct  from  the  Son  of  God.3     He  refused  to  admit  of 

1  In  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Athanasian  Creed  :  ef?  ttolutuis,  ov  avyxv<rei 
(pvo-ewv,  aAA'  ev&crei  imoardaewv  (in  the  Horologion,  Venice,  ed.  vii.,  1895, 
p.  520) .  Mgr.  Duchesne  has  a  good  note  on  the  Antiochene,  Alexandrine,  and 
Western  attitudes  and  terminology  in  his  Hist.  anc.  de  Vkglise,  iii.  319-323. 

2  In  his  answer  to  Cyril's  second  letter  (Loots  :  Nestoriana,  Halle,  1905, 
p.  176).  Certainly  if  Nestorius  only  meant  that  Mary  was  not  the  mother 
of  the  divinity,  that  the  divinity  was  not  born  of  her,  and  did  not  suffer, 
he  is  quite  right.  Mgr.  Duchesne  (op.  cit.  iii.  325)  points  out  that  the  word 
dtoTdxos  needs  explanation.  But  Nestorius's  detailed  explanation  makes 
his  meaning  clear  enough  :  the  man  Jesus  who  was  born  and  suffered  was 
not  God.  Sometimes  he  was  prepared  to  compromise  about  the  deoroxos 
(Hefele-Leclercq  :  Hist,  des  Conciles,  11.  i.  p.  263,  and  Loots  :  Nestoriana, 
pp.  181,  184,  273,  302,  309,  etc.). 

3  See  the  text  in  Hefele-Leclercq,  11.  i.  p.  240. 


70  THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

a  "  union  "  (evwo-is)  between  the  divinity  and  humanity,  and 
would  only  allow  a  "  conjunction  "  (o-wdfaia)  1  between  God 
and  man.  He  taught  that  the  man  Jesus  was  only  the  organ, 
instrument,  temple,  vessel,  garment,  of  the  Son  of  God.2  His 
counter-anathemas  to  Cyril  (p.  63)  are  quite  enough  to  show  his 
heresy  ;  for  instance,  No.  VII  :  "  If  anyone  say  that  the  man  who 
was  created  from  the  Virgin  is  himself  the  Only-begotten  who 
was  born  of  the  Father  before  the  day-star,  instead  of  confessing 
that  he  has  a  share  in  this  name  of  Only-begotten  only  because  of 
his  being  united  to  him  who  is  by  nature  the  Only-begotten  of  the 
Father  ...  let  him  be  anathema."  3  At  the  beginning  of  the 
Council  of  Ephesus,  during  the  preliminary  discussions,  Nestorius 
said  :  "  Never  will  I  call  a  child  two  or  three  months  old  God  ; 
because  of  this  I  will  not  communicate  with  you  (Cyril)."  4 

Now,  the  Book  of  Heraklides  only  confirms  all  this.  M.  Jugie 
says  it  is  one  of  the  dullest  books  that  ever  came  from  the  hand  of 
man.5  In  reading  F.  Nau's  excellent  French  version  I  did  not 
find  it  so:  indeed,  it  produces  a  good  deal  of  sympathy  with 
Nestorius.  He  protests  with  dignity  against  the  way  he  had  been 
treated  ;  one  has  the  impression  of  a  respectable,  well-meaning 
man,  plainly  always  in  good  faith,  who  had  been  hardly  used. 
The  haste  with  which  he  was  condemned  and  deposed  at  Ephesus, 
before  his  friend  John  of  Antioch  arrived,  certainly  seems  re- 
grettable. His  keen  interest  in  the  later  developments  is  curious. 
He  is  strongly  in  favour  of  his  successor  St.  Flavian,  and  rightly 
indignant  against  the  Monophysite  Robber-Synod  at  Ephesus  in 
449  (see  p.  173).  Perhaps  he  might  have  accepted  the  decrees  of 
Chalcedon  and  so  have  rehabilitated  himself,  had  he  lived.  But 
meanwhile,  in  his  Heraklides  Book,  in  spite  of  all  this,  Nestorius 
is  still  emphatically  a  Nestorian.  Throughout  he  assumes  that 
hypostasis,  person  (tt/ooo-wttov)  ,  and  nature  (individual  and 
concrete  nature)  are  exactly  the  same  thing.     If  you  start  from 

1  See  the  text  in  Hefele-Leclercq,  11.  i.  p.  239-240. 

2  Loofs  :    Nestoriana,  pp.  168,  175,  205,  303,  etc. 

3  Hefele-Leclercq  :   ib.  p.  282  ;    but  see  the  whole  list. 

4  Ib.  p.  293.  Mr.  Bethune  Baker  says  that  in  this  sentence  8c6v  is  the 
subject,  and  tries  to  excuse  Nestorius,  not,  I  think,  with  much  success 
{Nestorius  and  his  Teaching,  pp.  79-80). 

6  £chos  d 'Orient,  191 1  (xiv.),  p.  65. 


NESTORIANISM  yi 

this  philosophic  basis,  you  cannot  possibly  admit  one  person 
having  two  natures.  Nor  does  he.  In  this  book,  as  before,  to 
Nestorius  "  Christ  "  denotes  a  composite  being,  or  rather  two 
beings,  two  persons  joined  together  in  a  merely  moral  union, 
working  together,  much  as  we  conceive  the  Spirit  of  God  working 
with  a  prophet.  There  are  two  persons  in  the  strict  sense,  two 
prosopa  :  "I  say  two  natures,  and  he  who  is  clothed  is  one,  he 
who  clothes  is  another  ;  and  there  are  two  prosopa,  of  him  who 
clothes  and  of  him  who  is  clothed."  x  There  then  emerges  an 
artificial  (double)  prosopon  of  union,  as  a  servant  who  represents 
his  king  may  be  said  to  be  the  king's  prosopon,  to  act  in  the  king's 
person.2  The  union  of  God  and  man  in  Christ  is  only  a  moral 
union,  a  union  of  love  and  will  (not  a  natural,  inseparable,  physical 
union) ;  the  prosopon  of  union  is  one  of  "  economy  "  (presumably 
as  members  of  a  corporation  form  one  artificial  person,  a  "  persona 
moralis  "  by  "  economy  ") :  "  The  natures  3  joined  by  will  receive 
their  union,  not  in  one  nature,  but  to  produce  the  union  of  will  in 
a  prosopon  of  economy."  4  The  body  and  the  human  nature  of 
Christ  are  the  temple  and  garment  only  of  the  Word  of  God.5 
God  and  man  in  him  are  like  the  fire  in  the  burning  bush — fire  and 
bush  distinct.6  "  Christ  "  (the  morally  united  being),  not  the 
Word  of  God,  has  two  natures.7  It  cannot  be  admitted  that 
the  Word  of  God  was  born  of  a  woman,  died,  was  buried,  rose 
again,  and  so  on.8  Lastly,  Heraklides  gives  the  same  in- 
sufficient compromise  about  the  Ocotokos  as  we  have  already 
noted  in  his  earlier  writings.9  "Show  me,"  he  says,  "that 
God  the  Word  was  born  in  the  flesh  of  a  woman."  10     "  The 

1  Ed.  Nau,  p.  193  ;   cf.  pp.  268,  274,  183,  etc. 

2  lb.  p.  52 

3  He  always  supposes  nature  and  person  as  the  same  thing. 

4  lb.  p.  35  ;   cf.  53,  63.  5  lb.  pp.  139,  159. 
6  lb.  p.  141.                                                              7  lb.  p.  150. 

8  lb.  p.  148.  This  point  (a  favourite  with  Nestorius)  should  make  the 
issue,  and  his  heresy,  clear.  We  say  :  the  Word  of  God  certainly  was  born 
of  a  woman  and  died,  though  not  in  his  divine  nature.  We  adore  him  who 
was  born  of  Mary  and  died  on  the  Cross.  But  we  could  not  adore  him 
unless  he  were  God.  The  Word  was  made  flesh  (that  is,  was  born  of  a 
woman),  and  dwelt  amongst  us  till  he  died,  was  buried,  rose  again. 

9  Above,  p.  69,  n.  2. 

10  Heraklides,  ed.  cit.  p.  131.  An  unaccountably  rash  challenge.  We 
have  only  to  show  him  the  fourth  Gospel,  i.  14. 


72  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Virgin  is  by  nature  mother  of  a  man,  but  by  manifestation  Mother 
of  God."  1 

Enough  of  these  dogmatic  discussions.  We  must  go  on  to  our 
proper  subject,  the  history  of  the  Nestorian  sect.  This  rather 
long  dogmatic  excursus  is  inserted  because  of  the  discussion  now 
going  on  as  to  whether  after  all  Ephesus  and  the  Catholic  Church 
did  not  make  a  mistake  from  the  beginning  in  excluding  that  sect. 
We  have  said  perhaps  enough  to  show  that  it  is  not  so.  Nestorius 
(one  feels  no  animus  against  a  respectable  man  whose  cause,  to  us, 
is  buried  since  fifteen  centuries) ,  in  spite  of  the  harsh  treatment  he 
received  and  his  good  qualities,  taught  a  doctrine  which  cut  away 
the  very  root  of  Christianity  ;  namely,  that  God  the  Son  himself, 
for  us  men  and  for  our  salvation,  came  down  from  Heaven,  and 
was  made  flesh  of  the  Holy  Ghost  from  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  was 
made  man  ;  was  crucified  also  for  us  under  Pontius  Pilate,  suffered 
and  was  buried.  Nestorius's  doctrine  had  to  be  rejected  ;  the 
man  who  persisted  in  it  could  not  remain  a  Catholic :  and  the 
people  who  glory  in  the  fact  that  they  hold  his  doctrines  are, 
at  least  implicitly,  heretics.2 

3.  Nestorianism  in  Syria 

We  left  St.  Cyril,  having  gained  his  cause,  returning  to  Alex- 
andria from  Ephesus.  Nestorius  was  deposed  and  banished,  his 
successor  was  ordained.  But  the  quarrel  between  Cyril  and  John 
of  Antioch  was  not  yet  healed.  John  had  gone  back,  still  a 
partisan  of  Nestorius,  sore  and  angry  with  Cyril.  There  was 
enmity  between  the  two  chief  Eastern  sees.  The  Emperor  was 
distressed  about  this.  From  now  the  great  question  was  the 
reconciliation  of  the  Pontiffs  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch.     The 

1  P.  173.  She  is  by  nature  mother  of  one  person,  who  is  God  and  man, 
though,  of  course,  her  motherhood  comes  only  from  that  person's  human 
nature.     No  Catholic  ever  imagined  that  she  gave  birth  to  the  divine  nature. 

2  Many  more  quotations  from  the  Book  of  Heraklides  will  be  found  in 
M.  Jugie's  article:  "Nestorius  juge  d'apres  le  Livre  d'Heraclide,"  in  the £chos 
d' Orient  for  191 1  (vol.  xiv.),  pp.  65-75.  For  his  life  in  general  see  F.  Nau  : 
Nestorius  d'apres  les  sources  orientates  (Paris,  Bloud,  191 1).  Father  Jugie 
has  since  examined  the  whole  question  in  Nestorius  et  la  controverse 
Nestorienne  (in  the  "  Bibliotheque  de  Theologie  historique,"  Paris,  1912). 
See  also  J.  P.  Junglas  :   Die  Irrlehre  des  Nestorius,  Trier,  1912. 


NESTORIANISM  73 

Pope  also  (Sixtus  III,  432-440,  successor  of  Celestin  I)  wrote  and 
took  steps  to  bring  about  this  reconciliation.  At  first  John  would 
have  nothing  to  say  to  it.  The  Eastern  bishops  on  their  way 
home  held  a  synod  at  Tarsus  in  Cilicia,  in  which  they  renewed 
their  excommunication  of  Cyril  and  his  adherents.  In  432  the 
Emperor  (Theodosius  II)  wrote  to  John  imploring  him  to  make 
peace,1  and  to  St.  Simon  Stylites,  at  that  time  venerated  by  every- 
one,2 asking  him  to  try  and  bring  about  a  reconciliation.  The 
imperial  notary  Aristolaus  went  to  Antioch  with  the  letter  and 
found  John  more  tractable.  Then  he  went  to  Alexandria  and 
discussed  matters  with  Cyril.  The  basis  of  his  proposals  was  that 
Cyril  should  not  insist  on  his  twelve  anathemas  (p.  63),  and  that 
John  should  drop  Nestorius.  It  was  on  this  general  basis  that 
union  was  at  last  achieved.  Cyril's  anathemas  were  felt  to  be 
harsh  and  offensive  by  many  Syrian  bishops  ;  very  sensibly ,  then, 
he  let  them  be  ignored,  when  John  and  his  friends  had  agreed  to 
an  entirely  sufficient  and  orthodox  declaration.  The  negotiations 
took  some  time  ;  we  need  not  go  into  the  details  here.3  But  two 
points  may  be  noted.  First,  throughout  the  discussion  Cyril 
appears  as  the  superior.  This  is  right  and  natural  for  several 
reasons ;  among  others,  Alexandria  was  then  the  second  see  in 
Christendom,  superior  to  Antioch  the  third.  So  it  is  John  who 
approaches  Cyril  and  offers  explanations  and  a  creed  to  him,  which 
Cyril  eventually  accepts.  Secondly,  in  these  discussions  Cyril 
makes  it  clear  that  he  does  not  deny  two  natures  in  our  Lord.  He 
denies  that  he  in  any  way  teaches  Apollinarism,  he  acknowledges 
a  perfect  human  soul  in  Christ,  he  says  that  the  Logos  in  his  own 
nature  is  certainly  unchanging,  not  subject  to  human  conditions.4 
He  explains  that  he  never  meant  that  our  Lord's  humanity  came 
from  heaven  (is  identified  with  the  divinity)  :  "  One  nature  of  the 
Son,  that  is  the  nature  of  one  (fxiav  cftvatv,  d>s  £v6s)  yet  made  human 

1  The  letter  is  in  Hefele-Leclercq  :   Hist,  des  Conciles,  n.  i.  p.  385. 

2  St.  Simon  (Simeon)  Stylites,  f459,  the  most  famous  of  the  hermits  who 
lived  on  a  column.  His  column  was  about  one  day's  journey  from  Antioch 
on  the  way  to  Aleppo,  where  the  great  monastery  called  after  him  (Kal'at 
Sim'an)  stands. 

3  A  full  account  will  be  found  in  Hefele-Leclercq  ;  loc.  cit.  chap.  iii.  pp. 
378-422. 

4  So  his  letter  to  Acacius  of  Berrhcea  ;   Mansi,  v.  831-835 


74  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

and  incarnate."  x  So  Cyril  is  in  agreement  with  the  later  decisions 
of  Chalcedon  ;  he  did  not,  as  after  his  death  the  Monophysites 
pretended,  belong  to  them. 

The  efforts  of  Aristolaus  were  crowned  with  success.  John  of 
Antioch  sent  to  Cyril  an  orthodox  declaration  of  his  faith.  He 
acknowledges  the  title  Ocotokos,  with  a  correct  explanation  of  it.2 
Further,  he  "  recognized  the  deposition  of  Nestorius  and  anathema- 
tized his  bad  and  pernicious  novelties/'3  This  is  all  that  could  be 
expected.  Cyril  was  satisfied.  John  writes  again  a  pleasant  letter, 
beginning  :  "  Behold,  again  we  are  friends/'4  Cyril  answered 
him  in  a  famous  letter  announcing  complete  reconciliation,  begin- 
ning, "  Let  the  heavens  rejoice,"5  and  in  April  433  announced  to 
the  faithful  of  Alexandria  that  peace  was  now  restored  with 
Antioch.6    That  is  the  happy  end  of  this  quarrel. 

But  not  everyone  was  satisfied.  In  Syria  three  parties  remained. 
First,  the  great  majority,  with  the  Pope,  the  Emperor,  the  faith- 
ful in  the  West  and  at  Constantinople,  were  delighted  that  there 
was  now  peace.  They  accepted  the  Council  of  Ephesus  and  the 
word  OeoTOKos.  Nestorius  had  disappeared  ;  they  rejoiced  at 
the  agreement  between  the  two  great  Patriarchs — an  agreement 
blessed  by  a  still  greater  Patriarch  far  away,  where  the  sun  set  over 
the  Imperial  City  and  the  throne  of  Peter ;  they  argued  reasonably 
that  professions  of  faith  that  satisfied  Cyril,  John  and  Sixtus 
could  satisfy  a  plain  Christian  man  too.  These  are  the  great  bulk 
of  Christians,  Catholic  and  Orthodox,  till,  alas !  long  centuries 
later,  Cerularius  casts  his  shadow  between  them  and  Peter  of 
Antioch  vainly  tries  to  prevent  the  great  schism.7  Then  there 
were  extremists  on  either  side.  In  Syria  there  were  some  who 
held,  with  what  was  already  a  formidable  party  in  Egypt,  that 
Cyril  ought  not  to  be  reconciled  with  John.  They  saw  in  Cyril's 
explanations  a  concession  to  the  cause  of  Nestorius.  They  had 
declaimed  so  vigorously  against  the  theory  of  two  persons  in 
Christ  that  they  had  come  to  suspect  any  distinction  in  him  at  all. 

1  From  Cyril's  letter  to  Acacius  (Ep.  40  ;   P.G.  lxxvii.  192-193). 

2  lb.  172-173,  quoted  by  Hefele-Leclercq,  loc.  cit.  p.  396. 

3  P.G.  lxxvii.  173.  4  P.G.  lxxvii.  247. 

5  Ep.  39  :   LcBtenlur  cceli  (P.G.  lxxvii.  173-182). 

6  Mansi,  v.  289-290. 

7  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  pp.  188-192. 


NESTORIANISM  75 

He  was  one  in  every  sense,  one  in  nature  too.  These  are  the  first 
Monophysites.  We  shall  come  back  to  them  in  Chap.  VI.  And, 
lastly,  there  were  those  who  thought  that  John  should  not  have 
been  reconciled  to  Cyril.  These  are  the  old  guard  of  incorruptibles 
from  John's  anti-synod  at  Ephesus.  John  had  now  condemned 
Nestorius  and  accepted  the  OeoroKos.  These  would  do  neither. 
Their  Patriarch  had  given  in  to  "  that  Egyptian  "  ;  but  they 
would  not.  They  still  held  Nestorius  for  an  injured  saint,  still 
denied  our  Lady's  title,  still  clung  to  the  theology  of  Diodore  and 
Theodore.  And  these  people,  at  last,  are  our  Nestorian  sect. 
From  now  the  discussion  within  the  Catholic  Church  is  over ;  these 
Syrian  anti-theotokians  are  condemned  by  a  general  council,  they 
break  communion  with  their  Patriarch.  Already  they  are  a  local 
heretical  sect.  So,  leaving  the  further  story  of  the  great  Church, 
we  follow  their  fortunes  down  to  the  pathetic  little  body  which 
still  lingers  in  Kurdistan. 

The  Nestorian  party,  now  in  schism  against  its  Patriarch 
John  of  Antioch,  soon  found  its  centre  in  the  theological  school 
of  Edessa.  When  Nisibis  was  ceded  to  Persia  in  363  a  great 
number  of  Christians  there  came  across  the  frontier  to  Roman 
territory  at  Edessa  (p.  40) .  Here  they  greatly  strengthened  the 
old  theological  school,  so  that  in  363  it  became  almost  a  new 
foundation.  This  school  was  already  greatly  devoted  to  the 
theology  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.  We  can,  then,  understand 
how,  when  the  excommunicate  Nestorians  from  Antioch  came  to 
Edessa,  and  told  the  Edessenes  that  Cyril  of  Alexandria  had 
condemned  Theodore's  doctrine,  had  deposed  a  certain  blameless 
Bishop  of  Constantinople  because  he  held  it ;  that  John  of  Antioch, 
at  first  firm,  had  now  given  way  to  the  Egyptian, — we  can  under- 
stand with  what  indignation  the  teachers  and  scholars  at  Edessa 
declared  that  they  would  not  obey  Cyril  and  John,  that  they  were 
for  Theodore  and  Nestorius.  From  now  till  it  is  closed  in  489,  the 
school  of  Edessa  is  the  centre  of  Nestorianism  in  the  empire. 
But  the  Bishop  of  Edessa  was  no  Nestorian.  Strangely  enough, 
the  authorized  pastor  of  the  Nestorian  city  was  a  strong  adherent 
to  Cyril.  He  was  Rabbula,1  rather  a  famous  person.  Rabbula 
was  a  convert,  son  of  a  Mazdaean  priest.      He  had  married  a 

J-   'Pa&oyXas. 


76  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Christian  wife,  then  had  been  made  a  Christian  himself  by  Aca- 
cius  of  Berrhoea.  His  wife  went  to  be  a  nun  and  he  became  a 
monk.  In  412  he  was  ordained  Bishop  of  Edessa.  At  Ephesus 
he  took  the  side  of  his  Patriarch,  and  was  a  member  of  John's 
anti-synod.  But  in  431  and  432,  while  at  Constantinople  on  a  visit, 
he  was  entirely  converted  to  St.  Cyril ;  from  then  he  becomes  one 
of  the  chief  supporters  of  the  genuine  Council  of  Ephesus.  He  saw 
the  danger  of  Theodore's  works  and  wrote  to  Cyril  denouncing 
them.1  It  was  Rabbula  who  procured  a  decree  from  the  Emperor 
ordering  all  books  of  Diodore  and  Theodore  to  be  burnt.  So  there 
was  great  opposition  to  the  bishop  among  the  Nestorians  at  Edessa. 
The  opposition  was  led  by  two  men,  Ibas  2  and  Bar  Sauma.3 

Ibas  was  an  ardent  student  of  Theodore  the  Interpreter  ;  he 
too  had  been  at  the  anti-synod  of  Ephesus  in  Rabbula's  following, 
but  he  was  never  converted  to  Cyril.  Instead,  he  becomes  a  keen 
Nestorian  and  opponent  of  his  bishop.  Writing  to  a  certain  Mari 
in  Persia,4  he  denounces  Rabbula  as  a  turncoat  and  a  tyrant.  One 
of  these  letters  of  Ibas  to  Mari  afterwards  became  the  third  of  the 
famous  "  Three  Chapters  "  condemned  by  Justinian  to  please  the 
Monophysites.5  Ibas  was  excommunicated  by  Rabbula  and  re- 
mained leader  of  a  schismatical  party  at  Edessa  till  Rabbula  died. 
Bar  Sauma  was  the  Rector  or  President  of  the  Theological  School ; 
he,  too,  shared  Ibas's  ideas  and  took  part  in  the  schism  against  the 
bishop.  For  the  rest,  Rabbula  was  a  zealous  and  deserving  pastor 
of  this  troublesome  flock.  He  was  an  enthusiast  for  right  order 
and  ecclesiastical  discipline,  though  he  had  little  enough  of  either 
in  his  distracted  diocese.     It  is  believed  to  be  Rabbula  who 

1  Rabbula's  letter  is  among  those  of  St.  Cyril  (Ep.  73;  P.G.  lxxvii.  347-348). 

2  Yihiba  ("  given,"  Donatus). 

3  "  Son  of  Fasting  "  ;   in  Greek  Bapaovp.as. 

4  There  is  considerable  doubt  as  to  who  this  Mari  (Ibas's  correspondent) 
was.  He  is  called  Bishop  of  Beth  Ardashir.  Ardashir  is  the  Persian 
name  for  Seleucia  ;  so  he  would  be  the  Katholikos.  But  the  Katholikos 
at  this  time  was  Dadyeshu'  (p.  50).  Labourt  suggests  that  the  word  Mari 
in  the  address  of  Ibas's  famous  letter  is  not  a  proper  name  at  all,  but  merely 
Mar  (Lord)  with  the  suffix  (="  my  Lord  ").  The  address  might  well  be: 
"  luth  mari  efiskufd  dbeth  ardashir  "  (to  my  Lord  Bishop  of  Ardashir),  which 
would  be  transcribed  in  Greek,  ets  Mdpiv  i-xicrKoirov  B-qQapfiaaiprivSov,  and  Mdpis 
would  be  taken  for  a  proper  name.  So  the  Maris  of  the  "  epistola  Ibae  ad 
Marin  "  may  be  Dadyeshu'  (Le  Christ,  dans  I'emp.  perse,  p.  134,  note). 

5  See  p.  202,  below.     It  is  in  Mansi,  vii.  241-250. 


NESTORIANISM  y7 

abolished  the  Diatessaron  and  substituted  for  it  the  four  separate 
Gospels,  in  conformity  with  the  rest  of  Christendom.1  He  died  in 
435.  At  once  the  Nestorians  got  their  champion  Ibas  ordained  as 
his  successor.  Now,  there  was  naturally  an  anti-Nestorian  party  2 
opposed  to  him.  They  tried  several  times  to  get  him  deposed  by 
the  Emperor  or  the  Patriarch,  but  did  not  succeed  till  the  Robber- 
Synod  of  Ephesus  in  449. 3  This  deposed  him  and  set  up  one 
Nonnus  in  his  place.  It  was  at  the  Robber-Synod  that  Dioscor 
of  Alexandria  quoted  Ibas  as  saying,  "  I  do  not  envy  Christ  for 
becoming  God,  for  I  could  do  so  too,  if  I  wanted  to  " — probably 
a  lie  of  Dioscor.  Ibas  was  not  altogether  Nestorian  as  bishop  ; 
he  was  willing  to  admit  the  crucial  word  Theo tokos,  with  an 
explanation.  Besides,  whatever  the  Robber-Synod  did  was  bad, 
so  Chalcedon  restored  him  in  45 1.4  He  died  in  peace  in  457,  and 
Nonnus  then  succeeded  him  lawfully.  Ibas  is  one  of  the  persons 
of  this  time  whom  one  remembers  with  mixed  feelings.  First  we 
think  of  him  as  a  Nestorian,  a  schismatical  opponent  of  Rabbula. 
Then  when  he  has  become  bishop  and  has  attracted  the  hatred  of 
the  Monophysites,  we  rather  sympathize  with  him,  and  are  glad 
that  Chalcedon  restored  him.  He  is  a  typical  case  showing  how 
difficult  in  Syria  it  is  to  draw  the  fine  line  between  the  two  opposite 
heresies.  Constantly  we  see  that  the  men  who  oppose  Nestorius 
are  Monophysites,  and  the  opponents  of  Monophysism  take  their 
stand  by  Theodore  and  Nestorius.  After  451  the  situation  theo- 
retically becomes  clearer.  Chalcedon  gives  a  standard  that  is 
neither  the  one  heresy  nor  the  other.  Unfortunately,  hardly  any- 
one in  Syria  was  Chalcedonian  ;  the  two  sides  were  Nestorian 
and  Monophysite. 

Bar  Sauma,  too,  was  exiled  by  the  Robber-Synod  and  came  back 
after  Chalcedon.  But  after  Ibas's  death  (457)  a  violent  Mono- 
physite reaction  (under  Nonnus)  took  place  at  Edessa ;  all  the 

1  Above,  p.  35  ;  and  Burkitt  :   Early  Eastern  Christianity,  p.  77. 

2  Rabbula's  party.  One  hesitates  to  call  them  Catholic,  because  already 
they  tend  strongly  towards  Monophysism.  It  is  the  tragedy  of  this  con- 
troversy in  Syria  that  the  opponents  of  Nestorianism  nearly  all  go  to  the 
other  extreme  and  defend  pure  Monophysism.  Continually  in  Syria  and 
Persia  we  see  two,  and  only  two,  parties,  Nestorians  and  Monophysites. 

3  See  p.  174. 

4  He  accepted  the  Theotokos,  and  denounced  Nestorius  at  Chalcedon. 


78  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

"  Persian  School  "  (the  friends  of  Theodore  and  Nestorius)  were 
expelled  ;  Bar  Sauma  crossed  the  frontier,  became  Bishop  of 
Nisibis,  and  was  the  chief  agent  in  making  the  Church  of  Persia 
Nestorian  (p.  80).  This  is  almost  the  end  of  Nestorianism  in 
the  empire.  The  other  party,  the  Monophysites,  now  became 
enormously  powerful  in  Syria.  The  long  story  of  the  troubles 
caused  by  them  and  the  various  attempts  of  the  Government  to 
reconcile  them  begins.  We  come  back  to  this  in  Chap.  VI.  One 
of  these  attempts  was  that  the  Emperor  Zeno  (474-491)  in  489 
finally  closed  the  School  of  Edessa  (still  a  hotbed  of  Nestorianism) 
and  banished  all  Nestorians  from  the  Empire.  They  then  went  to 
swell  the  ranks  of  the  heresy  in  the  country  which  had  already 
become  its  home — Persia.  From  now  the  story  of  Nestorianism 
is  that  of  the  Church  of  Persia.  Before  leaving  Edessa,  we  may 
note  that  it  now  became  largely  Monophysite  (Jacobite)  and  was 
the  see  of  a  Jacobite  bishop.  But  the  Nestorians  had  at  intervals 
bishops  there  too,  especially  after  the  Moslem  conquest  of  all  the 
land  put  an  end  to  the  Roman  law  of  banishment  against  them. 
The  old  line  of  bishops,  Chalcedonian  and  Catholic,  lasted  till 
the  nth  century.  According  to  a  common  confusion,  these  are 
called  the  Greek  bishops  by  the  natives,  as  sharing  the  views  of 
the  Emperor  at  Constantinople.  And  the  Crusaders  for  a  time  set 
up  a  Latin  bishop  there  too  ;  so  there  was  a  Bishop  of  Edessa  for 
every  taste.  This  is  the  usual  development  in  Syria  and  Egypt. 
At  first  the  various  sees  were  handed  about  between  the  parties, 
fought  for  by  each,  and  we  have  alternate  bishops  of  each  side, 
depositions  and  banishments.  Then  the  sects  settle  down  as 
organized  bodies,  and,  instead  of  a  struggle  between  rivals  for  the 
one  see,  we  have  two  or  more  lines  going  on  at  the  same  time, 
each,  of  course,  claiming  to  be  the  only  lawful  pastor  of  the  place. 
And  it  is  often  very  difficult  to  say  which  is  the  old  line. 


4.  Nestorianism  in  Persia 

We  left  the  national  Persian  Church  in  424,  having  proclaimed 
herself  independent  of  Antioch,  already  schismatical,  open  to  any 
heresy  that  might  attack  her  (p.  51).  The  heresy  that  did  so  was 
Nestorianism.     It  was  natural  that  a  Church  which  had  so  long 


NESTORIANISM  79 

looked  to  Edessa  for  guidance  should  share  Edessa's  heresy.  All 
this  Persian  Church  was  East  Syrian  in  language  and  character  ; 
her  bishops  had  been  brought  up  on  Theodore  and  his  ideas.  So, 
almost  as  soon  as  the  Nestorians  made  Edessa  their  centre,  the 
effect  of  their  teaching  reached  over  the  border  to  the  daughter 
Church.  Already  the  Persian  bishops  had  learned  to  sympathize 
with  Nestorius  and  hate  Cyril.  When,  therefore,  the  empire 
became  impossible  for  Nestorians,  they  found  a  fertile  soil  waiting 
for  them  across  the  frontier.  Bar  Sauma  was  the  man  who  made 
Christian  Persia  Nestorian.  He  and  the  other  exiles  from  Edessa 
poured  into  the  country,  hot  with  indignation  against  the  Roman 
Government  and  the  Council  of  Ephesus. 

We  saw  how  the  School  of  Nisibis  had  been  formed  again  at 
Edessa  when  the  Persians  took  Nisibis  in  363  (p.  75).  Now  the 
exact  opposite  took  place.  The  Nestorian  School  of  Edessa, 
driven  from  the  empire,  was  reformed  under  Bar  Sauma  at 
Nisibis.  Bar  Sauma  became  Bishop  of  Nisibis,  and  lost  no  time 
in  propagating  his  heresy.  He  was  helped  by  the  attitude  of  the 
Government.  We  have  seen  that  the  beginning  of  persecution  in 
Persia  was  that  the  State  feared  co-religionists  and  friends  of  the 
Romans  in  its  territory.  As  soon  as  it  discovered  that  Bar 
Sauma  and  the  Nestorians  held  a  form  of  Christianity  which  was 
not  that  of  the  enemy,  that  they  had  been  expelled  from  the 
empire  just  because  of  this  new  teaching  of  theirs,  that  they  were 
bitterly  hostile  to  Caesar  and  Caesar's  religion,  naturally,  it  welcomed 
the  spread  of  this  anti-Roman  doctrine  among  its  subject  Christians. 
From  now  the  Persian  Government  becomes  the  protector  of  Nes- 
torians ;  when  the  Persian  Church  turned  Nestorian,  there  was 
hardly  any  more  persecution.  The  king  at  this  time  was  Piruz  (457- 
484).  Barhebraeus  x  tells  a  story  which,  though  plainly  calum- 
nious, represents  very  well  the  kind  of  thing  that  happened.  He 
says  that  Bar  Sauma  went  to  the  king  and  said  :  "  Unless  the 
faith  of  Christians  in  your  lands  be  different  from  the  faith  of 

1  For  Barhebraeus  see  p.  330.  His  great  work  is  the  Syrian  Chronicle 
(ed.  by  Bejan  :  Gregorii  Bar  Hebrcei  Chvonicon  Syriacum,  Paris,  1890  ;  the 
second  part  only  ed.  by  Abbeloos  and  Lamy  :  Chvonicon  ecclesiasticum, 
2  vols.,  Louvain,  1 872-1 876).  This  is  a  most  important  source  for  Nes- 
torian and  Jacobite  history.  We  shall  often  have  to  refer  to  it.  But  his 
ardent  Jacobite  feeling  makes  him  sometimes  rather  unfair  to  Nestorians. 


80  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Christians  in  Greek  regions,  they  will  never  have  a  sincere  heart 
and  affection  towards  you.  ...  If,  then,  you  will  give  me  soldiers 
I  will  make  all  Christians  in  your  territory  followers  of  that  man 
(namely,  Nestorius)."1  Barhebrseus  then  represents  Bar  Sauma 
as  going  about  Persia  with  soldiers,  persecuting  and  massacring  all 
Christians  who  would  not  adopt  his  heresy. 

It  is  certain  the  Bar  Sauma  was  the  chief  propagator  of  Nes- 
torianism  in  Persia,  mightily  aided  by  the  refugees  from  Edessa 
in  489  (p.  78) .  Two  other  factors  complicate  the  situation.  The 
first  is  Bar  Sauma/s  quarrel  with  the  Katholikos.  The  See  of 
Seleucia-Ctesiphon  was  then  held  by  Babwai  (457-484).  He  is 
said  to  have  ruled  badly  ;  in  any  case  the  domineering  Bishop  of 
Nisibis  fell  foul  of  him  and  led  an  opposition  against  him.  Then 
Babwai  was  caught  holding  treasonable  correspondence  with  the 
Emperor  Zeno,2  and  was  hanged  by  his  fingers  till  dead,  in  484. 
Bar  Sauma  is  believed  to  have  had  a  hand  in  his  death.  In  the 
same  year  Bar  Sauma  held  a  synod  at  Beth  Lapat,3  which  is 
generally  counted  the  first  Nestorian  assembly  in  Persia.  It 
made  much  of  Theodore  the  Interpreter,  declared  that  all  should 
follow  him,  and  denounced  the  faith  of  the  Roman  Empire.  As 
the  faith  of  the  empire,  or  at  least  of  that  part  of  it  known  to 
Persians,  was  then  largely  Monophysite,  it  is  difficult  to  say  how 
far  this  means  that  the  Fathers  of  Beth  Lapat  were  Nestorian. 
We  have  here  a  case  of  what  recurs  throughout  this  period — 
vehement  opposition  to  what  seemed  the  only  alternative  (Mono- 
physism),  but  some  doubt  to  us  whether  that  opposition  meant  to 
go  as  far  as  Nestorius.  This  synod  introduces  a  second  factor 
of  considerable  importance.  All  kinds  of  asceticism,  especially 
celibacy,  were  very  repugnant  to  Mazdaeans  (p.  25).  So  they 
much  disliked  vows  of  celibacy  among  Christians.  Now,  when  a 
small  Church  is  surrounded  by  unbelievers  who  are  particularly 
opposed  to  one  of  its  principles,  one  of  two  things  will  happen. 
Either  the  Christians  in  opposition  insist  all  the  more  firmly  on 
that  very  point,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  they  may  be  influenced  by 
their  neighbours  and  may  modify  or  discard  the  practice  or 

1  Ed.  Abbeloos  and  Lamy,  iii.  col.  66-68. 

2  He  wrote  the  letter  quoted  on  p.  46. 

'  A  metropolitan  see  over  to  the  east,  north  of  Susa. 


NESTORIANISM  81 

doctrine  in  question.  This  is  what  happened  in  Persia.  The 
Christians  imbibed  Mazdsean  ideas  against  celibacy.  Side  by 
side  with  Nestorianism  comes  a  second  taint  on  the  Church  of 
Persia — the  total  abolition  of  celibacy  of  the  clergy.  Alone  among 
the  old  Churches  that  of  Persia  dropped  all  laws  of  celibacy.  This 
Synod  of  Beth  Lapat  began.  It  declared  marriage  lawful  for 
everyone,  even  for  priests  after  ordination,  even  for  bishops. 
And  Bar  Sauma  set  the  example  by  marrying  a  nun.1 

But  the  Synod  of  Beth  Lapat  was  a  schismatical  act  of  Bar 
Sauma  against  the  Katholikos.  He  hoped  to  become  Katholikos 
himself  after  Babwai's  execution.  Probably,  he  would  have  done 
so  ;  but  in  that  year  his  protector  King  Plruz  died  (484),  and  he 
lost  his  chance.  Instead  Acacius2  was  appointed,  as  usual,  by 
the  king  (Balash,  484-488).  Bar  Sauma  would  not  recognize 
him.  But  in  485  another  synod  was  held  at  Beth  'Adrai,  and 
here  he  had  to  submit  to  him.  The  Synod  of  Beth  Lapat  was 
annulled  ;  it  has  no  place  among  the  canons  of  the  Nestorian 
Church.  However,  at  Beth  'Adrai  a  confession  was  drawn  up 
which  is  at  least  suspect  of  Nestorianism,3  and  the  abolition  of 
celibacy  was  maintained.  From  now  these  two  things  go  hand 
in  hand  throughout  Persia.  We  may  also  notice  that  Zeno's 
Henotikon  (482,  below,  p.  193)  had  just  been  published,  so  that, 
more  than  ever,  Monophysism  seemed  the  religion  of  the  empire, 
and  the  only  alternative.  In  486  Acacius  held  another  synod  at 
Seleucia,  in  which  he  condemned  Monophysism  4  and  renewed  the 
abolition  of  celibacy.  Soon  after  this  Acacius  was  sent  on  an 
embassy  to  Constantinople.  Here  he  declared  that  he  was  no 
Nestorian,  had  only  rejected  Monophysism,  and  was  quite  willing 
to  excommunicate  Bar  Sauma.  When  he  came  back,  Bar  Sauma 
was  dead  (between  492-495),  killed,  it  is  said,  by  monks  with  the 

1  In  499  another  synod  declared  that  "  the  Katholikos  and  the  minor 
priests  and  monks  may  marry  one  wife  and  beget  children  according  to  the 
Scriptures,"  Wallis  Budge  :   The  Book  of  Governors,  i.  p.  cxxxii. 

2  Akak,  a  fellow-disciple  of  Ibas  at  Edessa,  also  one  of  the  Persians  who 
fled  from  the  empire.  They  all  had  wonderful  nicknames  ;  Acacius  was 
the  "  Strangler  of  Oboles,"  Bar  Sauma  the  "  Swimmer  among  Nests,"  and 
so  on  (see  Labourt,  op.  cii.,  for  a  collection  of  these  names,  p.  132). 

3  Quoted  in  Labourt :   op.  cit.  p.  262-263. 

4  The  formula  is  in  Labourt,  pp.  147-148  ;  it  is  correct  from  a  Catholic 
point  of  view. 

6 


82  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

keys  of  their  cells.1  He  was  certainly  a  Nestorian,  and  had  done 
all  he  could  to  propagate  his  heresy  in  Persia.  Only,  we  may 
question  how  far  during  his  life  he  had  succeeded  in  committing 
the  Church  officially  as  far  as  he  was  prepared  to  go  himself. 
Acacius,  too,  died  in  495  or  496,  and  was  succeeded  by  Babwai 
II2  (497-502).  This  man  marks  almost  the  lowest  degradation  of 
the  Persian  Church.  He  could  not  even  read,  and  he  had  a  wife. 
In  his  time  flourished  Narse,  one  of  the  great  lights  of  the  Nes- 
torians.  The  Jacobites  call  him  Narse  the  Leper  ;  to  Nestorians 
he  is  the  "  Harp  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  He  was  a  friend  of  Bar 
Sauma,  helped  to  found  the  school  of  Nisibis,  and  became  its 
President.  He  died  in  507.  He  wrote  a  great  number  of  poems 
and  sermons.3  Narse  is  quite  openly  a  Nestorian.  In  his 
homily  on  the  "  three  Doctors,"  Diodore,  Theodore  and  Nestorius,4 
he  declares  that  our  Lord  is  in  two  natures,  two  hypostases,  and 
one  prosopon.  He  undertakes  a  vehement  defence  of  the  virtuous 
Nestorius,  who  was  betrayed  for  gold  by  enemies  of  the  truth. 
For  a  time  this  state  of  things  goes  on.  The  Persian  Church  is 
vehemently  anti-Monophysite  ;  many  of  her  bishops  and  writers 
are  clearly  Nestorian.  Such  was  Rhima  of  Arbela,  who  denounced 
Cyril  and  the  "  sacrilegious  Synod  of  Ephesus."  5  There  was 
general  sympathy  with  Nestorius  and  strong  feeling  in  favour  of 
all  the  theology  of  Theodore  the  Interpreter.  But  it  is  perhaps 
not  till  we  come  to  formal  rejection  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
that  we  can  fairly  brand  the  whole  Church  of  Persia  as  Nestorian. 
After  the  death  of  Babwai  II  in  502  follows  another  period 
of  confusion.  There  are  again  rival  Patriarchs  6  and  mutual  ex- 
communications. At  last  we  come  to  Maraba7  (540-552)  and 
a  reform.  Maraba  was  of  the  school  of  Nisibis.  He  came  to 
Constantinople  between  525  and  533,  and  there  refused  to  condemn 
Theodore  and  the  Nestorian  teachers.    Having  returned  to  Persia, 

1  Barhebrseus,  ed.  cit.  iii.  78. 

2  Babai  or  Babwai,  really  the  same  name. 

3  Cf.  Duval  :   Litterature  syriaque,  pp.  346-347. 

4  Published  by  Martin  in  the  Journal  asiatique  (July  1900). 

5  Mshihazka,  ed.  cit.  p.  144. 

6  We  may  use  this  title  from  now  as  that  of  the  Katholikos  of  Seleucia- 
Ctesiphon. 

7  Mar-aba,  "  Lord  Father." 


NEST0RIAN1SM  S3 

he  travelled  about  his  Patriarchate,  put  down  abuses,  notably 
that  of  incest,  which  the  Christians  had  begun  to  copy  from 
Mazdaeans,  and  held  reforming  Synods.  But  for  his  doubtful 
attitude  about  the  heresy,  he  was  in  every  way  an  excellent 
prelate.  During  his  reign  there  was  another  persecution,  result 
of  a  war  against  the  empire  in  540-545,  but  less  fierce  than  that  of 
Shapur  II.  Maraba  himself  was  arrested,  imprisoned  a  long  time, 
and  finally  died  of  the  treatment  he  had  received  (552).  Labourt 
describes  him  as  a  "  glorious  confessor  of  the  Faith,  the  light  of 
the  Persian  Church,  to  which  he  left  the  double  treasure  of  blame- 
less doctrine  and  a  model  life."  1 

In  order  to  finish  this  account  of  the  introduction  of  Nestorian- 
ism  in  Persia  let  us  go  at  once  to  the  7th  century.  It  was  the 
time  when  Islam  overturned  the  old  Persian  kingdom,  when  also 
Persian  Christianity  definitely  received  the  form  it  has  kept  down 
to  our  own  time.  Mar  Babai,  called  the  Great,  was  abbot  of  the 
monastery  of  Izla  (569-628) .  During  one  of  the  constant  vacan- 
cies of  the  Patriarchate  especially,  he  had  enormous  influence, 
most  of  all  in  the  North.  Already  the  Persian  Church  had  long 
been  troubled  by  various  heresies  (p.  89)  ;  the  condemnation  of 
the  Three  Chapters  in  the  empire  (202)  was  to  Persians  an 
unpardonable  attack  on  their  heroes,  Theodore  and  Ibas.  Babai 
was  a  theologian  and  a  writer.  Against  Monophysites  and  other 
heretics  he  wrote  treatises  which  his  countrymen  have  accepted 
ever  since  as  representing  faithfully  their  doctrine.  His  Book  of 
the  Union  (namely,the  union  of  Godhead  and  manhood  in  Christ)  2 
represents  the  teaching  of  this  Church  as  it  was  fixed  finally  in  the 
early  7th  century,  as  it  is  still.  It  is  Nestorian.  Babai  admits 
a  certain  communicatio  idiomatum,3  but  only  because  of  the 
"  prosopon  of  union."  He  will  not  admit  one  united  (<rw0eros) 
hypostasis.     The  hypostasis  of  the  Logos  cannot  assume  another 

1  Le  Christianisme  dans  V empire  perse,  p.  191.  For  Maraba's  life  and 
reign,  see  ib.  163-191. 

2  It  will  be  published  in  Chabot's  Corpus  scriptorum  christianorum 
orientalium.     Meanwhile  it  is  resumed  in  Labourt :    op.  cit.  280-287. 

3  The  communicatio  idiomatum,  admitted  by  the  Catholic  Church,  means 
ascribing  to  the  one  person,  Christ  our  Lord,  the  properties  of  both  natures, 
as  when  we  say  that  God  the  Son  was  born  of  Mary,  died  on  the  cross,  the 
immortal  became  mortal,  a  man  is  Almighty  God,  and  so  on.  To  deny 
such  language  was  always,  obviously,  a  test  of  Nestorianism. 


84  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

hypostasis.  Our  Lord's  human  nature  is  the  garment,  temple 
of  the  Logos.  He  will  not  admit  the  term  Ocotokos,  nor  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon.1 

That  is  still  the  position  of  the  Nestorian  Church.  They  never 
allow  the  word  Ocotokos;  it  has  no  place  in  their  liturgy.  It  is 
not  easy  to  say  when  they  rejected  the  Council  of  Chalcedon. 
Perhaps  it  is  more  true  to  say  that  they  never  accepted  it.2  The 
present  Nestorians  reject  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon.  This,  then, 
is  enough  to  show  that  they  deserve  their  name.  Further,  they 
honour  Nestorius  as  a  saint  in  their  liturgy,  together  with  Diodore 
and  Theodore.3  So  it  is  clear  that  if  they  are  to  become  Catholics 
they  must  not  only  give  up  their  schismatical  claim  of  independ- 
ence from  any  earthly  authority  over  their  self-styled  Patriarch  ; 
they  must  also  be  converted  to  the  faith  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon, 
they  must  accept  the  term  Ocotokos,  and  renounce  Nestorius  at 
least,  if  not  Diodore  and  Theodore.  In  a  word,  this  unhappy 
little  sect  is  not  only  schismatical  but  heretical  too.4 

We  saw  that  the  Greek  words  used  in  the  Nestorian  controversy 
are  sometimes  ambiguous  and  add  to  the  confusion  by  the  fact 
that  we  are  not  always  sure  what  the  people  who  use  them  mean 
(p.  68).  Much  more  is  this  the  case  when  these  already  am- 
biguous terms  are  translated  into  what  are  supposed  to  be,  more 
or  less,  their  Syriac  equivalents.     There  is  so  much  discussion  as 

1  See  the  texts  quoted  by  Labourt,  loc.  cit. 

2  Yeshu'yab  II  (628-643)  declared  Chalcedonians  to  be  heretics  ;  see 
p.  90. 

3  See,  e.g.,  Brightman  :   Eastern  Liturgies,  p.  279. 

4  Let  us  note  at  once  that  in  the  case  of  all  these  Eastern  Churches, 
indeed  as  a  general  rule,  it  is  the  schism  that  matters  really  more  than  the 
heresy.  It  is  schism  that  makes  heresy  so  great  an  evil.  For  you  may 
think  what  you  like  about  theological  questions,  as  long  as  you  do  not  deny 
what  is  a  condition  of  communion  with  the  Catholic  Church.  It  is  pre- 
ferring your  own  opinion  to  communion  with  the  Church  of  Christ  which 
forms  the  essential  guilt  of  heresy.  Heresy  is  wrong  because  it  causes 
schism.  The  schism  which  results  is  the  root  evil  of  heresy.  If  there  were 
no  schism  it  would  be  not  heresy  but  a  harmless  theological  mistake.  And 
the  schism  is  what  lasts  and  is  deplorable  for  centuries.  No  one  now  gets 
hot  over  prosopon  and  hypostasis  ;  but  the  Nestorians  suffer  still  from  their 
tragic  isolation,  their  schism  from  the  rest  of  Christendom.  A  convert 
gives  up  his  heresy  because  it  involves  schism  :  he  wants  not  to  be  in  schism, 
and  for  that  reason  he  accepts  all  that  is  a  condition  of  communion  with 
the  Catholic  Church. 


NESTORIANISM  85 

to  these  technical  Syriac  words  that  we  may  end  this  chapter  by  a 
summary  explanation  of  them. 

From  the  root  ith  (esse) x  we  have  ithyd  and  ithuthd.  These 
mean  simply  essence,  nature  (ovaia).2  Only  a  Monophysite 
would  deny  that  there  are  two  ithuthe  in  Christ. 

Parsufd  is  tt/doo-wttoi/  transcribed,  a  foreign  word  used  only 
to  represent  the  Greek.  We  saw  that  Nestorius  admitted  one 
"  prosopon  of  union  "  in  our  Lord  (p.  71).  So  the  Syrian  Nes- 
torians  speak  of  one  parsufd,  keeping  rather  the  idea  of  a  mask 
which  covers  the  two  personalities.3  The  meaning  of  these  two 
words,  then,  is  fairly  clear.  There  is  nothing  to  complain  of  in 
their  use  by  these  people.  Nor  is  there  any  particular  difficulty 
about  the  word  kydnd.*  This  means  nature,  and  corresponds 
exactly  to  <£iW.  The  Monophysite,  of  course,  says  that  there 
is  one  kydnd  in  Christ ;  we  shall  not  quarrel  with  the  Nestorian 
who  says  there  are  two.  The  last  word,  the  most  difficult,  is 
knumd.5  They  use  this  for  the  Greek  i^oo-racm ;  and  just  as 
that  word  is  the  difficult  and  ambiguous  one  in  Greek  (p.  68),  so 
is  knumd  the  great  contention  in  Syriac.  All  Nestorians  say  there 
are  two  knume  in  our  Lord.  That  is  their  formula  :  two  kydne,  two 
knume,  one  parsufd.  The  question,  then  (just  as  in  the  case  of 
hypostasis) ,  is  what  they  mean  by  their  knumd.  If  it  means  merely 
a  real,  individual  nature  (as  opposed  to  a  universal  concept) ,  they 
agree  with  us  ;  if  it  means  what  we  mean  by  "  person/'  their 
phrase  "  two  knume  "  is  pure  Nestorianism.6  But,  once  more,  it 
is  not  because  of  their  use  of  abstruse  Syriac  terms  that  we  called 
modem  Syrians  heretics.  It  is  because  they  reject  the  Councils 
of  Ephesus   and   Chalcedon,   because  they  deny  the  standard 

1  Hebr.  Yes. 

2  Except  that  ithyd  is  originally  (and  generally)  concrete,  ithuthd  always 
abstract. 

3  So  Babai  the  Great.  See  his  explanation  quoted  by  Labourt,  op.  cit. 
284-285. 

4  From  kdn,  "to  be  "  (Arabic  kdna,  Hebr.  kdri). 

5  Derivation  very  doubtful.  The  Syrians  treat  k-n-m  as  a  root,  and  form 
stems  of  a  verb  from  it  ;  so  Ethp.  ethkanam.  Ar.  'aknum,  is  simply  derived 
from  Syriac. 

6  An  explanation  of  these  terms,  with  illustrations  of  their  use  by  Syriac 
writers,  will  be  found  in  the  appendix  of  J.  F.  Bethune  Baker  :  Nestorius 
and  his  Teaching,  pp.  212-232. 


86  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Catholic  word  fleoTo/co?,1  because  they  abhor  the  teaching  of 
Cyril  the  Egyptian  and  glory  in  their  faithfulness  to  that  of  the 
blessed  Mar  Nestorius,  that  we  say  they  are  Nestorians. 


Summary 

In  this  chapter  we  have  considered  the  rise  and  spread  of  the 
Nestorian  heresy.  Nestorius  of  Constantinople  taught  the  new 
theory  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  not  one  person,  that  Jesus 
was  a  man  in  whom  dwelt  the  Word  of  God.  So,  consistently,  he 
denied  that  our  Lady  is  Mother  of  God.  His  opponent  was  St. 
Cyril  of  Alexandria.  The  third  general  council  (at  Ephesus  in 
431)  condemned  his  heresy,  affirmed  our  Lady's  title,  deposed  and 
banished  Nestorius.  He  died  in  exile,  keeping  his  ideas  to  the  end. 
For  a  time  the  Patriarch  John  of  Antioch  supported  him  and  was 
an  enemy  of  Cyril.  Eventually  John  accepted  the  decrees  of 
Ephesus  and  was  reconciled.  But  Nestorius  had  left  a  party  in 
Syria,  chiefly  because  of  the  great  influence  of  his  masters  Diodore 
of  Tarsus  and  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.  This  party,  then,  in 
schism  against  their  patriarch  (John  of  Antioch)  and  all  the  rest 
of  Christendom,  formed  the  beginning  of  the  Nestorian  sect.  For 
a  time  they  were  strong  at  Edessa,  and  from  Edessa  already 
began  to  influence  the  Church  of  Persia.  In  489  the  Emperor 
Zeno  closed  their  headquarters,  the  theological  school  of  Edessa, 
and  banished  Nestorians  from  the  empire.  They  then  went  over 
the  frontier  into  Persia  and  spread  their  teaching  there.  Bar 
Sauma,  Bishop  of  Nisibis,  was  the  chief  propagator  of  Nestorian - 
ism  in  Persia  ;  at  Nisibis  the  heresy  made  a  new  school  and  new 
headquarters.  So  step  by  step  the  Church  of  Persia  (already  in 
schism)  fell  a  victim  to  this  teaching.  By  the  7th  century  at 
latest  it  is  officially  committed  to  the  doctrine  of  Diodore,  Theo- 
dore and  Nestorius.  From  that  time  what  was  once  the  Catholic 
Church  of  Persia  has  become  the  Nestorian  sect.  To  estimate 
this  it  is  not  really  necessary  to  discuss  the  exact  meaning  of 
obscure  Greek  and  Syriac  terms.     These  people  are  Nestorians 

1  Syriac  Ydldath  alldkd  ;  Ar.  wdlidatu-llah.  These  are  the  correspond- 
ing terms  used  in  the  Semitic  liturgies. 


NESTORIANISM  87 

because  they  admit,  they  glory  in  the  fact,  that  they  stand  by 
what  Nestorius  taught.1 

1  If  it  be  said  that  they  do  this  under  a  misunderstanding,  that  they  do 
not  themselves  understand  what  Nestorius  taught,  this  is  no  doubt  true  in 
most  cases.  A  modern  Nestorian  priest,  or  even  bishop,  probably  under- 
stands very  little  about  the  philosophy  of  nature  and  person.  But  this 
does  not  save  their  position.  They  know  quite  well  that  all  Christendom 
outside  their  body  accepts  Ephesus  and  rejects  Nestorius,  that  they  are 
in  schism  with  everyone  else  because  they  will  not  do  so.  And  they  prefer 
the  teaching  of  this  one  man  to  that  of  all  the  rest  of  Christendom  ;  they 
prefer  to  be  in  schism  rather  than  give  up  Nestorius.  That  is  the  very 
essence  of  heresy. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE   NESTORIAN    CHURCH   IN   THE   PAST 

The  branch  which  does  not  remain  in  the  vine  shall  wither.  This 
did  not  happen  at  once  to  the  Nestorian  Church.  On  the  contrary, 
for  a  time  it  still  flourished  conspicuously.  It  was  a  great  factor 
of  civilization  in  Persia  under  the  Moslem,  and  it  sent  out  most 
wonderful  missions  all  over  Asia.  Yet  the  cause  of  withering  was 
there  all  the  time,  and  gradually  it  began  to  produce  its  effect. 
This  Church  was  now  cut  off  from  communion,  from  almost 
any  intercourse,  with  the  West,  where  Christianity  was  the  leading 
power.  Isolated,  surrounded  by  an  alien  faith  and  an  alien 
civilization,  it  sank  gradually  till  it  became  a  poor  little  group  of 
families  in  Kurdistan,  harassed  and  persecuted  by  all  its  neigh- 
bours. It  will  be  clearest  to  take  the  various  points  of  its  history 
separately. 

i.  General  History 

Here  we  trace  in  outline  the  external  development  of  the 
Nestorian  Church  down  to  our  own  time. 

We  left  Maraba  Katholikos  and  Patriarch  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon 
(540-552 ;  p.  83).  The  local  title  (Seleucia-Ctesiphon)  now 
becomes  less  important,  is  gradually  almost  forgotten.  The 
primates  changed  their  seat  constantly.  Meanwhile  the  office  of 
Katholikos  (now  always  assumed  to  be  a  Patriarchate,  like  those 
of  Antioch,  Alexandria,  etc.)  had  become  a  thing  apart.  The 
Katholikos,  wherever  he  might  be,  was  simply  the  head  of  the 
Nestorian  Church.  We  shall  see  his  titles  below  (p.  131).  Mean- 
while we  may  call  him  simply  the  Nestorian  Patriarch.  Maraba 
was  a  zealous  reformer  (p.  83).     After  him  follows  a  line  of 

8S 


THE   NESTORIAN   CHURCH  IN   THE   PAST    89 

Patriarchs  of  whom  there  is  nothing  particular  to  say.  Each 
held  a  synod  at  his  election  or  nomination,  according  to  what  had 
become  the  invariable  custom  ;  and  there  was  the  usual  series  of 
quarrels,  rivalries  and  depositions,  either  successful  or  not.1 

From  the  6th  century  the  official  Nestorian  Church  was  troubled 
by  the  presence  of  heretical  bodies.  First  among  these  we  must 
count  the  Jacobites  (Syrian  Monophysites) .  The  opposite  heresy 
was  much  stronger  in  West  Syria,  as  we  shall  see  in  Chapter  X. 
Then,  when  it  became  an  organized  sect,  it  pushed  towards  the 
East  and  entered  Persia.  The  Persia  Government  troubled  not 
at  all  about  these  quarrels  among  Christians.  We  may  reserve 
the  account  of  Jacobitism  in  Persia  till  we  come  to  that  sect 
(p.  329).  Here  it  is  enough  to  say  that  the  Jacobites  eventually 
set  up  a  smaller  rival  hierarchy  in  Persia  and  remained  a  per- 
manent opposition  to  the  Nestorians.    There  were  other  rivals  too. 

The  Masalians  are  a  sect  who  appear  in  the  East  from  the  6th 
to  about  the  12th  century.  Their  name  means  "  people  who 
pray,"  "  orantes  "  ;  2  so  in  Greek  they  are  eux°7X€l/ot'  ^xiTaL- 
Epiphanius  (f  403)  already  mentions  a  sect  of  Masalians,3  who 
may  be  the  same  people.  According  to  him  they  came  to  Syria 
from  Mesopotamia.  Their  heresy  consisted  in  denying  baptism 
and  all  sacraments,  admitting  only  prayer  as  the  means  of  ob- 
taining grace,  rejecting  any  kind  of  hierarchy,  claiming  to  be 
themselves  wholly  spiritual  and  perfect.  They  are  clearly  one 
form  of  the  widespread  Paulician  sect.  These  people  gave 
trouble  to  the  Nestorians,  as  to  all  Eastern  Churches.  They  were 
strong  in  Adiabene,  and  especially  in  the  Shiggar  mountains 
between  the  Tigris  and  the  Euphrates,  south  of  Nisibis.  So 
there  are  canons  in  Persia  made  against  the  "false  Masalians"; 
sometimes  these  people  were  converted.  The  Henanians  are 
more  difficult  to  understand.  They  are  supposed  to  have  been 
founded  by  one  Hnana  of  Adiabene,  head  of  the  School  of 
Nisibis  in  the  early  6th  century.     They  became  a  considerable 

1  Labourt  gives  notices  of  each  of  the  Patriarchs.  For  those  between 
Maraba  and  the  Moslem  conquest  (scil.  552-637)  see  op.  cit.  pp.  192-246  ; 
also  Wigram  :    The  Assyrian  Church,  pp   210-264. 

2  Msalyane  from  sld ;  pa" el  :   salli  (Ar.  salla),  to  pray. 

Marra a\iavo\     ovroi     KaAovvrai     ep/xripevd^zvui-"        Hcsr.    lxxx.    I— 3    (P.G. 
xlii.  755~762)- 


go  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

party,  especially  at  Nisibis.  Many  Nestorian  writers  inveigh 
against  the  Henanians.  Their  chief  opponent  was  Babai  the 
Great  (p.  83)  ;  canons  were  drawn  up  against  them.1  According 
to  Babai  they  were  Origenists,  Fatalists,  Pantheists.  But  a 
significant  point  is  that,  among  their  other  crimes,  they  accepted 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon  and  the  teaching  of  St.  John  Chrysostom 
rather  than  that  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.  So  a  doubt  occurs  : 
were  these  Henanians  really  anything  but  Catholics  among  the 
Nestorians  ? 

King  Chosroes  2  II  (590-628)  made  war  on  Rome,  captured 
Jerusalem,  and  took  away  the  Holy  Cross.  He  appointed 
Sbaryeshu'  I  Patriarch  (596-604).  Sbaryeshu' 3  was  a  monk  who 
enjoyed  a  great  reputation  for  piety.  As  Patriarch  he  ruled 
firmly  and  well,  took  steps  to  put  down  heresies,  and  spread  the 
faith  among  idolaters  in  outlying  parts  of  the  kingdom.  He  was, 
of  course,  not  allowed  to  make  any  propaganda  against  the  State 
religion.  In  603  he  was  made  to  accompany  the  Persian  army 
and  pray  for  its  success.  But  this  was  less  distressing  to  him 
than  it  would  have  been  to  his  early  predecessors,  since,  as  a 
Nestorian,  he  looked  upon  the  Romans  as  heretics.4  Chosroes  II 
began  a  fitful  persecution  of  Christians,  the  last  they  had  to  suffer 
from  the  old  Persian  monarchy  ;  there  were  some  martyrs  at  this 
time.  Sbaryeshu'  I  was  succeeded  by  Gregory  (605-609).  Then, 
because  of  the  persecution,  there  was  a  long  vacancy  (609-628). 
At  Chosroes'  death  peace  was  restored  to  the  Church.  Heraclius 
(610-641)  won  victories  which  frightened  the  Persian  Government. 
Yeshu'yab  II  became  Patriarch  (628-643),  and  was  sent  as  am- 
bassador to  Heraclius  in  630.  Arrived  at  the  Emperor's  court  he 
made  a  Catholic  profession  of  faith  and  was  admitted  to  Com- 
munion. On  his  return  to  Persia  he  was  violently  attacked  for 
this,  and  for  a  time  his  name  was  struck  from  the  Nestorian 
diptychs.5  But  this  was  only  a  passing  phase.  He  had  con- 
demned Chalcedon  in  his  profession  of  faith  already.6 

Yeshu'yab  II  saw  the  great  change  which  now  came  over  the 

1  So  in  Sbaryeshu"s  first  synod,  596  (Labourt :   op.  cit.  p.  215). 

2  Husrau.  3  "  Hope  in  Jesus." 

4  For  the  reign  of  Sbaryeshu'  I  and  his  works,  see  Assemani :  Bibl.  Orient. 
ii.  441-449  ;  Labourt  :  op.  cit.  pp.  210-221  ;  Wigram  :  op.  cit.  pp.  221-224. 

5  Labourt,  p.  243.  6  lb.  note  4. 


THE   NESTORIAN   CHURCH   IN   THE   PAST     91 

country.  The  Sassanid  monarchy  of  Persia  was  at  its  last  gasp. 
In  632  Yazdagird  III  began  his  unhappy  reign.  In  634  the 
Moslems  under  Halid  first  invaded  Persia.  In  635  they  won  the 
battle  of  Kadesia  and  took  Seleucia-Ctesiphon.  In  642  they  won 
their  "  Victory  of  Victories  "  at  Nehawand.  Yazdagird  fled,  and 
was  murdered  in  651.  The  old  Mazdaean  State  came  to  an  end, 
and  now  the  Moslem  ruled  all  Persia.  The  Mazdaeans,  so  long 
oppressors  of  Christians,  were  now  themselves  oppressed.  They, 
too,  like  the  Christians,  became  a  ray  ah  under  the  Khalif.  Vast 
numbers  turned  Moslem  ;  so  that  the  old  Persian  religion  is  now 
represented  only  by  a  few  so-called  gebers  1  in  Persia,  and  by  the 
Parsi  exiles  in  India. 

The  Christians  had  no  reason  for  loyalty  to  the  Sassanid 
Government.  On  the  contrary,  the  Moslem  invaders  were  much 
nearer  to  them  in  religion,  had  on  the  whole  a  higher  civilization, 
and  offered,  at  any  rate  then,  better  terms  to  Christians  under 
their  rule.  So  we  hear  that  Yeshu'yab  and  his  Nestorians  rather 
welcomed  the  invaders,  and  took  steps  to  secure  their  protection 
and  tolerance.  So  did  the  Jacobites  in  Persia  (already  a  con- 
siderable community).2 

Now  the  Moslem  conquest,  although  the  great  turning-point 
in  the  political  history  of  Persia,  did  not  really  make  any  vital 
difference  to  the  Persian  Church.  To  the  Christians  it  only  meant 
a  change  of  masters.  They  had  never  known  what  it  is  to  have  a 
Christian  Government.  "  Since  twelve  centuries  the  Aramaic 
races  had  been  accustomed  to  submit  to  the  rule  of  the  strongest. 
The  Achemenids,  Seleucids,  Parthians  and  Sassanids,  one  after 
another,  had  exploited  and  oppressed  them  without  mercy.  The 
Arabs  continued  the  same  tradition.  To  slaves  it  matters  little 
whether  they  obey  this  or  that  master."  3 

1  For  this  word  see  p.  24. 

2  See  Barhebrseus  :  Chron.  eccl.,  ed.  cit.  ii.  116-118.  But  Labourt 
thinks  that  his  account  of  the  welcome  given  to  Moslems  by  Christians  may 
be  exaggerated  (in  later  times)  to  secure  the  favour  of  the  Moslem  Govern- 
ment ;  op.  cit.  245-246.  The  story  of  the  Arab  invasion  and  conquest  of 
Persia  has  been  told  many  times.  See,  for  instance,  Gibbon's  chapter  li., 
and  Bury's  note  on  the  chronology,  Appendix  21  to  vol.  v.  of  his  edition 
of  the  Decline  and  Fall  (pp.  540-543),  Methuen,  1898.  Bibliography  will 
be  found  there  in  App.  i.,  ib.  512-516. 

3  Labourt  :   op.  cit.  p.  246. 


92  THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

The  Nestorians  then  became  a  ray  ah,1  "  people  of  protection,"  2 
on  the  usual  terms  of  Christians  in  the  Khalifs  domain.3  About 
the  year  750  Bagdad  was  built  near  Seleucia-Ctesiphon.  The 
Abbasid  Khalifs  reigned  there  till  1258.  During  this  time 
the  Christians  (nasara) ,  of  whom  we  hear  in  their  neighbourhood, 
were,  of  course,  mostly  Nestorians.  They  did  not  at  once  sink  to 
the  pitiable  state  in  which  they  are  now.  They  still  had  enormous 
missions  (see  p.  108),  and  they  were,  during  all  the  Abbasid  period, 
a  very  important  factor  in  civilization  in  the  East. 

Various  legends  grew  up  later,  or  were  made  deliberately  to 
persuade  the  Moslem  conqueror  to  look  with  special  favour  on  the 
Nestorians  among  the  subject  communities  of  Christians,  Jews 
and  Mazdaeans.  So  it  was  said  that  Mohammed  himself  had  been 
in  friendly  relations  with  a  Nestorian  monk  named  Sergius,  from 
whom  he  had  learned  about  the  Christian  system.4  Yeshu'yab  II 
was  said  to  have  gone  to  see  Mohammed,  and  to  have  obtained 
from  him  a  document  granting  privileges  to  Nestorians.5  Omar 
is  said  to  have  confirmed  this,  'Ali  to  have  given  another  letter  of 
protection  to  Nestorians  because  they  supplied  his  army  with  food 
at  the  siege  of  Mosul,  and  other  Khalifs  later  to  have  treated 
this  sect  with  special  toleration.6  So  a  Bishop  of  Adiabene,  writ- 
ing just  after  the  Moslem  invasion  (650-660),  says  that  the  new 
masters  are  by  no  means  so  bad  as  they  are  thought  to  be,  that 
they  are  not  far  removed  from  Christianity,  honour  its  clergy  and 
protect  its  Churches.7  We  conceive  the  Nestorians,  then,  as  subject 
to  the  usual  conditions  of  dimmis  ;  they  might  restore  their 

1  Ra'iyyah,  "herd,"  "flock,"  the  legal  name  for  an  alien  religious  com- 
munity tolerated  under  a  Moslem  Government. 

2  Ahl-addimmah.  3  See  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  233-237. 

4  So  far  this  is  likely  enough.  Mohammed's  twisted  knowledge  of  Chris- 
tianity and  of  various  Christian  legends  (as  shown  in  the  Koran)  was 
evidently  gathered  from  talking  to  Christians.  He  often  refers  to  monks 
(e.g.  Surah  lvii.  27).  There  were  Nestorian  missions  in  Arabia  in  his  time  ; 
his  informant  is  more  likely  to  have  been  a  Nestorian  than  anything  else. 
Indeed,  some  references  to  our  Lord  in  the  Koran  suggest  a  Nestorian  origin 
(e.g.  S.  ii.  81,  254  ;    xliii.  57-65  ;    v.  116-117,  etc.). 

5  This  is  the  famous  Testament  of  Mohammed,  published  by  Gabriel 
Sionita  (Paris,  1630). 

6  Assemani  :  Bibl.  Orient,  in.  (part  2),  p.  95  ;  here  also  the  Testament 
of  Mohammed  is  quoted. 

7  lb.  ill.  i.  p.  131. 


THE  NESTORIAN  CHURCH  IN   THE  PAST    93 

churches,  but  not  build  new  ones,  they  were  not  allowed  to  bear 
arms  nor  to  ride  a  horse,  save  in  case  of  necessity,  and  they  must 
even  then  dismount  on  meeting  a  Moslem ;  they  had  to  pay  the 
usual  poll-tax.  Yet  they  were  favoured  rather  more  than  other 
dimmis.  For  one  thing,  when  the  Khalif  reigned  at  Bagdad  (750- 
1258)  the  Nestorians  were  the  most  powerful  non-Moslem  com- 
munity at  hand.  Moreover,  they  were  very  useful.  They  had  a 
higher  tradition  of  civilization  than  their  masters.  Nestorians 
were  used  at  court  as  physicians,  scribes,  secretaries,  as  Copts 
were  in  Egypt  under  the  Fatimids  (p.  227).  This  body  of  Nes- 
torian  officials  at  court  got  much  influence,  and  eventually  had  a 
great  voice  in  canonical  matters,  elected  Patriarchs,  and  so  on. 
They  formed  a  kind  of  guild  or  corporate  society,the  "learned  men" 
who  had  the  Khalif 's  ear.  Indeed,  the  line  of  Arab  scholarship 
which  came  to  Spain,  and  was  a  great  factor  in  mediaeval  learning, 
begins  in  great  part  with  the  Nestorians  at  Bagdad.  The  Nestor- 
ians had  inherited  Greek  culture  in  Syriac  translations.  Now  they 
handed  it  on  to  their  Arab  masters.  So  we  find  Khalif s  treating 
the  Nestorians  as  the  chief  of  Christian  communities.  At  one 
time  (in  the  13th  century),  the  diploma  given  by  the  Khalif  to 
the  newly  appointed  Nestorian  Patriarch1  says:  "The  Sublime 
Authority  empowers  thee  to  be  installed  at  Bagdad  as  Katholikos 
of  the  Nestorians,  as  also  for  the  other  Christians  in  Moslem  lands, 
as  representative  in  these  lands  of  the  Rum  (sc.  Orthodox),  Jaco- 
bites, Melkites."2  This  means,  at  any  rate  sometimes,  civil 
authority  over  all  Christians  given  to  the  Nestorian  Patriarch.3 

As  usual,  under  Moslem  rule,  this  tolerance,  even  favour,  was 
liable  to  be  broken  by  intervals  of  sharp  persecution.  At  any 
time  a  fanatical  Khalif  could  start  harrying  his  non-Moslem  sub- 
jects as  much  as  he  liked.  The  Khalif  Al-Mahdi  (Mohammed  Abu- 
'abdullah,  775-785)  made  a  short  but  frightful  persecution,  as  a 
result  of  his  war  against  the  empire.     Christian  women  received  a 

1  Namely,  the  bard' ah  (commonly  called  berat),  which  he  received  from 
the  Government. 

2  Published  in  the  Zeitschrift  der  deutschen  M orgenlandsgesellschaft,  vii. 
(1853),  pp.  221-223. 

3  So  the  Turks  have  often  made  the  head  of  one  religious  body  civil  head 
of  others  too  (the  Gregorian  Armenian  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  over 
Uniate  Armenians,  etc.),  to  the  great  disadvantage  of  these. 


94  THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

thousand  lashes  with  thongs  of  bull's  hide  to  make  them  aposta- 
tize ;  yet  they  remained  faithful.  Harun  Ar-rashid  (Abii-ga'far 
786-809)  also  persecuted  for  a  time.  He  ordered  all  churches  to 
be  destroyed,  and  Christians  to  wear  a  special  dress  ;  from  which 
Kremer  concludes  that  already  they  had  begun  to  speak  Arabic, 
and  to  be  otherwise  not  distinguishable  from  their  Moslem 
neighbours.1 

A  picture  of  the  state  of  the  Nestorians  soon  after  the  Moslem 
conquest  of  Persia  is  given  by  the  life  of  their  Patriarch  Timothy  I 
(779-823),  related  by  M.  J.  Labourt.2 

Timothy  was  born  about  728  in  Adiabene,  still  the  chief  strong- 
hold of  Christianity  in  those  parts.  His  uncle,  George,  was  Bishop 
of  Beth  Bagash  on  the  Zab.  The  boy  was  sent  to  a  famous 
monastery,  Beth  'Abe,  to  be  educated ;  here  an  old  monk  pro- 
phesied to  him  :  "  Keep  thyself  from  all  uncleanness  ;  for  thou 
shalt  be  Patriarch  of  all  Eastern  lands,  and  the  Lord  will  make 
thee  famous,  as  no  one  has  been  before  thee  nor  shall  be  after  thee." 
Timothy  succeeded  his  uncle  as  Bishop  of  Beth  Bagash.  In  779 
the  Patriarch  Hnanyeshu' 3  II  (774-779)  died,  and  Timothy  began 
intriguing  to  succeed  him.  He  offered  the  electors  a  bag  which 
he  said  was  full  of  gold,  if  they  would  choose  him.  They  did,  and 
then  he  gave  them  the  bag,  which  was  found  to  contain  only  stones. 
The  story  does  credit  to  the  simple  faith  of  the  Nestorians  in  their 
bishops.4  Timothy  was  thus  made  Patriarch  in  780.  But  a 
number  of  bishops  opposed  him  on  sound  canonical  grounds,5  set 
up  a  rival,  Ephrem  of  Gandisabur,  and  he  had  much  trouble  before 
he  crushed  them.  He  had  no  mercy  on  Ephrem.  Then  Timothy 
set  about  his  duties  as  Patriarch.  He  opposed  the  Jacobites, 
already  a  powerful  community,  the  Catholics  (who  had  a  bishop 

1  A.  v.  Kremer  :  Culturgeschichte  des  Orients  (Vienna,  1875-1877),  ii.  168. 
An  account  of  the  state  of  Christians  under  the  Khalifs  at  Bagdad  will  be 
found  here,  pp.  162-177. 

2  Labourt  :  De  Timotheo  I,  Nestorianorum  patriarcha,  et  christianorum 
orient alium  condicione  sub  caliphis  Abbasidis  (Paris,  1904). 

3  "  Mercy  of  Jesus." 

4  Barhebraeus  tells  it:  Chron.  eccl.,ed.  cit.  ii.  168;  and  Maris:  Liber  Turris, 
ed.  cit.  p.  63. 

5  Not  because  of  the  bribing  trick  ;  that  was  fair  war :  but  because  the 
Metropolitans  of  Beth  Lapat,  Maishan,  Arbela,  and  Beth  Sluk  were  not 
present  at  the  election  ;    Labourt  :   De  Timotheo  I,  p.  11. 


THE   NESTORIAN   CHURCH  IN  THE   PAST     95 

at  Bagdad),  the  Masalians  and  Henanians  (p.  89).  He  wrote  to 
the  Maronites,  then  Monotheletes,  and  invited  them  to  accept  his 
own  faith.  This  faith  is,  of  course,  Nestorianism  in  the  mild  form 
in  which  his  sect  held  it.  He  repeats  to  the  Maronites  the  regular 
formula,  "  two  natural  hypostases  in  one  prosopon  of  the  Son  "  ; 
they  are  to  accept  Nestorius,  Theodore,  Diodore,  and  to  renounce 
"that  heretic  Cyril."  He  agrees  to  their  Monotheletism.1  He  settled 
questions  of  canon  law  and  discipline,  and  advanced  still  further 
the  power  of  the  Katholikos  over  his  suffragans.  It  is  sometimes 
said  that  it  was  this  Timothy  who  stopped  the  scandalous  practice 
of  bishops  and  monks  with  wives,  and  brought  the  discipline  of  the 
Nestorian  Church  to  its  present  state  (p.  134)  .2  He  was  a  person 
of  much  culture  and  zeal  for  scholarship.  He  was  well  versed  in 
the  Bible,  theology  and  philosophy.  He  read  Aristotle  in  a  Syriac 
version,  and  caused  other  of  his  works  to  be  translated  in  Syriac  or 
Arabic.3  Labourt  gives  a  very  respectable  list  of  Greek  and  Latin 
Fathers  quoted  by  Timothy  from  Syriac  translations.4  He  was 
zealous  about  schools.  He  writes  to  a  monk  who  became  a  bishop  : 
"  Take  care  of  the  schools  with  all  your  heart.  Remember  that 
the  school  is  the  mother  and  nurse  of  sons  of  the  Church."  And 
again  :  "  Watch  over  scholars  as  the  apple  of  your  eye."5  Our 
Timothy  was  on  friendly  terms  with  the  Khalifs  Al-Mahdi  and 
Harun  Ar-rashld.  He  is  said  to  have  settled  an  unpleasant  ques- 
tion of  divorce  to  the  great  advantage  of  Harun's  wife  Zubaidah. 
He  advised  her  to  turn  Christian,  be  baptized,  and  so  deserve 
death,  then  to  go  back  to  Islam  ;  in  this  way  Harun  could  retake 
her  without  further  trouble.6  Strange  advice  for  a  Christian 
bishop  to  give,  but  it  brought  him  great  favour  with  the  lady.   He 

1  Labourt :  op.  cit.  18-19.  It  is  curious  that  many  Nestorians  professed 
themselves  Monotheletes,  when  that  question  came  up.  It  seems  at  first 
like  joining  two  opposite  heresies.  But  Nestorians  found  the  unity  of 
Christ  not  in  one  hypostasis  but  in  one  operation,  ivepyeia,  though  they 
must  have  meant  only  one  operation  morally.  Anyhow,  they  were  very 
civil  to  the  Monotheletes,  who  thus  held  the  unique  position  of  pleasing 
both  Nestorians  and  Monophysites. 

2  So  G.  D.  Malech  :   History  of  the  Syrian  Nation,  269-270. 

3  We  have  seen  that  Arabic  knowledge  of  Greek  philosophy  came  through 
the  Nestorians.  Averroes  and  Avicenna,  and  through  them  St.  Thomas 
Aquinas,  may  owe  their  knowledge  of  Aristotle  to  this  very  Timothy. 

4  Op.  cit.  27-28.  5  lb.  29.  6  lb.  35. 


96  THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

ruled  over  a  mighty  Church  with  suffragans  all  over  Asia,  as  we 
shall  see  in  the  next  paragraph  about  Nestorian  missions  (pp.  103- 
110) .  So  lived  the  virtuous  Lord,  Mar  Timothy  the  first,  Katholikos 
of  the  East,  and  he  died  full  of  years  on  May  7  in  the  year  823. 

The  Patriarch  changed  his  place  of  residence  constantly.  The 
idea  that  he  was  bishop  of  the  twin  cities,  Seleucia  and  Ctesiphon, 
has  almost  disappeared.  The  Patriarchate  had  become  an  office 
of  itself,  independent  of  any  see.  Already  before  Timothy  I, 
Hnanyeshu'  II  had  moved  to  the  new  capital,  Bagdad.  Timothy 
resided  there,  as  did  most  Patriarchs,  till  the  Mongols  came  in 
1258,  and  for  some  time  after  that. 

In  the  early  nth  century  Albiruni,  a  Moslem  writer  from  Khiva,1 
mentions  the  Nestorians  as  the  most  civilized  of  the  Christian 
communities  under  the  Khalif .  He  says  that  there  are  three  sects 
of  Christians,  Melkites,  Nestorians  and  Jacobites.  "  The  most 
numerous  of  them  are  the  Melkites  and  Nestorians  ;  because 
Greece  and  the  adjacent  countries  are  all  inhabited  by  Melkites, 
whilst  the  majority  of  the  inhabitants  of  Syria,  'Irak  and  Meso- 
potamia and  Khurasan  are  Nestorians.  The  Jacobites  mostly  live 
in  Egypt  and  around  it."  The  Nestorian  Katholikos  "is  appointed 
by  the  Khalif  on  the  presentation  of  the  Nestorian  community." 
But  he  will  not  allow  that  the  Katholikos  is  a  Patriarch.  He  says 
Christians  have  only  four  Patriarchs,  of  Constantinople,  Rome, 
Alexandria  and  Antioch.  He  forgets  Jerusalem.2  About  a 
century  later  the  Nestorians  are  mentioned  by  another  Moslem 
philosopher,  Shahrastani.3    In  his  Book  of  Religions  and  Sects*  he 

1  Abu  Raihan  Muhammad  Ibn  Ahmad  alBIruni  was  born  at  Khiva  in  973, 
and  died  in  1048.  He  wrote  a  work  which  he  calls  Aldthdr  albdkiya 
' an-il-Kurun  Alkhdliya  ("Traces  of  Former  Generations").  It  is  a  de- 
scription of  religions  and  sects,  as  he  knew  them,  about  the  year  1000. 
He  does  not  mention  the  Mazdseans  (unless  this  part  has  been  destroyed) . 
His  book  is  translated  and  edited  by  C.  E.  Sachau  (London  :  Oriental 
Transl.  Fund,  1879). 

2  Ed.  Sachau,  chap.  xv.  pp.  282-284. 

3  Abu-lFath  Muhammad  Ibn  'Abdu-lKarim  Ash-Shahrastani,  born  a.d. 
1086  at  Shahrastan  by  the  desert  of  Khorasan.  He  lived  three  years  at 
Bagdad,  wrote  many  philosophical  and  theological  works,  and  died  at 
Shahrastan  a.d.  1153. 

4  Kitab  alMilal  wanNihal.  It  contains  accounts  of  Moslem  sects,  then  the 
Ahl  alKitab  (Jews  and  Christians),  then  people  who  have  something  "  like 
a  book  "  (mithl  Kitdb) ,  namely  Mazdaeans,  Manichaeans,  Gnostics,  etc.    The 


THE   NESTORIAN   CHURCH   IN  THE   PAST     97 

gives  a  not  very  accurate  account  of  Nestorian  theology.  Chris- 
tians, he  says,  are  divided  into  three  bodies :  Melkites  (who  follow 
Malka  !),  Nestorians  and  Jacobites.  Nestorians  believe  that  the 
Word  was  joined  to  the  body  of  Jesus,  "  like  the  shining  of  the  sun 
through  a  window  or  on  crystal,  or  like  the  figure  impressed  on  a 
seal."  According  to  them,  the  Messiah  "  is  God  and  man  in  one, 
but  each  is  an  essence,  a  person  and  a  nature."  He  says  the 
Nestorians  are  Monotheletes,  and  gives  a  very  strange  account  of 
their  Trinitarian  idea.  He  knows  the  Masalians  as  a  sect  of 
Nestorians.1 

In  the  13th  century  came  the  great  invasion  of  the  Mongols 
under  Jengiz  Khan  (1206-1227).  They  swept  over  China,  Tran- 
soxiana,  Persia.  Jengiz's  grandson  Hulagu  Khan  stormed  and 
sacked  Bagdad  in  1258,  and  put  to  death  the  last  Abbasid  Khalif, 
Almusta'zim  billah  ('Abdullah  Abu-ahmad,  1242-1258).2  This 
meant  again  a  change  of  masters  for  the  Nestorians.  But  it  was 
not  a  painful  one.  The  Mongols  turned  Moslem,  and  were  at  least  as 
tolerant  as  the  Arabs  had  been.  The  Crusades  did  not  much  affect 
the  Nestorians  in  their  ancient  home  ;  though  from  this  time  begin 
their  occasional  relations  and  correspondence  with  Popes,  to 
which  we  shall  return  when  we  come  to  the  Uniate  Chaldees. 

For  about  a  century  the  Nestorians  lived,  not  altogether  un- 
happily, under  the  successors  of  Jengiz  Khan.  It  was  during  this 
time  (the  13th  century)  that  their  Church  reached  its  largest  extent 
through  its  wonderful  missions  (p.  108).  We  have  a  picture  of 
their  condition  at  this  time  in  the  life  of  their  Patriarch  Yabal- 
laha  III  (1281-1317).3  He  was  originally  named  Mark,  and 
came  from  one  of  the  remote  missions  in  China.  He  had  come  to 
Bagdad  to  visit  the  Patriarch  Denha  1 4  (1265-1281)  on  his  way 

second  part  treats  of  Greek,  Arab,  Buddhist  and  Hindu  philosophers. 
The  book  is  edited  by  W.  Cureton  in  Arabic  :  Book  of  Religious  and  Philo- 
sophical Sects  (2  vols.,  London,  1842-1846),  in  German  by  T.  Haarbriicker  : 
Schahrastdni's  Religionspartheien  11.  Philosophenschulen  (2  vols.,  Halle, 
1850-1851). 

1  Ed.  Haarbriicker,  i.  259-267. 

2  For  the  Mongol  invasion  see  Gibbon,  chap.  lxiv.  (ed.  cit.  vol.  vii.  1-22). 

3  See  Chabot :  Histoire  de  Mar  Jab-Alaha,  Patriarche,  et  de  Raban  Sauma 
(Paris,  ed.  2,  1895). 

4  Denha  means  "  splendour,"  "  epiphany."  J.  B.  Chabot  published  a 
panegyric  of  Denha  I,  written  after  his  death  by  a  contemporary  monk, 

7 


98  THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

to  the  Holy  Land.  But  Denha  would  not  let  him  go  further.  In- 
stead, he  ordained  him  Metropolitan  of  Kathay  and  Wang  (Northern 
China).  Then  Denha  died,  and  Mark  succeeded  him  as  Yabal- 
laha  III.  He  governed  the  Nestorian  Church  during  its  most 
brilliant  period.  Twenty-five  Metropolitans,  in  Persia,  Mesopo- 
tamia, Khorasan,  Turkistan,  India  and  China,  obeyed  him.  He 
was  on  friendly  terms  with  the  Prince  of  the  Mongols,  under  whose 
civil  rule  he  lived.  This  prince  (Argon  Khan)  thought  of  sending 
an  embassy  to  the  Emperor,  the  Pope  and  the  Western  princes  ; 
naturally,  he  imagined  that  a*  Christian  ambassador  would  be 
most  welcome.  So  he  asked  the  Nestorian  Patriarch  to  find  him 
a  suitable  person.  Yaballaha  chose  a  monk,  Rabban  Sauma,  who 
had  come  from  China  with  him.1  The  Khan  gave  him  letters  for 
the  Emperor,  the  Pope  and  others,  and  sent  him  off  with  plenty 
of  money,  three  horses  and  a  suite. 

Rabban  Sauma's  embassy  in  Europe  is  one  of  the  most  curious 
episodes  of  later  Nestorian  history.  By  this  time,  the  very  exist- 
ence of  a  Nestorian  Church  was  almost  forgotten  in  the  West. 
Perhaps  the  most  remarkable  point  in  his  adventures  is  the  un- 
questioning confidence  with  which  everyone  takes  his  word  that 
he  is  a  good  Christian,  as  they  are.  So  entirely  had  suspicion 
of  Nestorians  died  out,  that  even  the  Pope  gave  him  Communion. 
Rabban  Sauma  came  to  Constantinople,  saw  what  he  calls  "  King 
Basileus  "  (evidently  taking  that  for  his  name),  the  Holy  Wisdom, 
all  the  relics  and  wonders.  Then  he  comes  to  Italy,  lands  at 
Naples,  and  sees  King  "  Irid  Harladu  "  2  At  that  time  Irid  Har- 
ladu  was  fighting  the  King  of  "  Arkun "  (Aragon).  Honest 
Sauma  is  amazed  that  in  European  war  only  combatants  are 
killed.  Not  so  is  war  waged  in  his  country.  Arrived  at  Rome, 
he  finds  the  Pope  just  dead.3  Instead  of  a  Pope  he  finds  twelve 
great  lords,  called  "  Kardmale."  He  says  he  has  come  from 
King  Argon  and  the  Katholikos  of  the  East.  The  Cardinals  ask 
him  who  founded  his  Church  (clearly  they  have  never  heard  of  it) , 
and  he  says :  "  Mar  Thomas,  Mar  Addai,  Mar  Maris  ;  we  have 

John  (Journal  asiatique,  Jan. -Feb.  1895).  It  tells  the  story  of  his  life, 
and  throws  light  on  the  state  of  the  Nestorians  in  his  time. 

1  Rabban  Sauma  was  born  at  Han-balik  (which  is  Pekin). 

2  This  astonishing  name  is  simply  "  il  re  Carlo  due  "  (Chabot:  op.  cit.-p.6o). 

3  Honorius  IV  (f  Apr.  3,  1287). 


THE  NESTORIAN   CHURCH  IN  THE   PAST      99 

their  rite."  They  ask  about  his  faith,  and  he  quotes  to  them 
the  creed  as  used  by  the  Nestorians  in  the  13th  century.  It  is, 
roughly,  the  Nicene  Creed  ;  but  it  has  Nestorian  clauses.  Sauma 
says  that  one  of  the  Trinity  "  clothed  himself  in  a  perfect  man  "  ; 
that  our  Lord  has  two  natures,  two  hypostases,  one  person.  Even 
now  the  Cardinals  do  not  seem  to  suspect  what  he  is.  But  they 
continue  the  discussion,  and  Sauma  incidentally  denies  theFilioque. 
The  horrors  of  theological  controversy  are  about  to  begin,  when 
he  says  :  "  I  did  not  come  here  to  argue  with  you,  but  to  venerate 
the  Lord  Pope."  As  there  was  at  the  moment  no  Lord  Pope  to 
venerate,  Sauma  goes  on  to  France,  and  arrives  at  Paris,  where  he 
sees  King  Philip  IV  (1285-13 14).  Then  he  comes  to  "  Kasonio  " 
(Gascogne),  and  there  finds  the  King  of  "  Alangitar  "  (Angle- 
terre),  none  other  than  our  Edward  I  (1272-1307).  With  him, 
too,  the  traveller  discourses.  Edward  says  he  means  to  fit  out  a 
crusade,  and  boasts  (at  that  time  he  could)  that  in  all  Western 
Europe,  though  there  be  many  kingdoms  and  governments,  there 
is  but  one  religion.  This  is  the  furthest  point  Sauma  reached. 
To  travel  from  Pekin  to  Gascony  in  the  13th  century  is  indeed  an 
astounding  feat.  On  his  way  back  he  stops  again  at  Rome,  finds 
Nicholas  IV  elected  (1288-1292),  and  pays  homage  to  him  with 
exceeding  reverence.  Nicholas  is  "  the  Lord  Pope,  Katholikos, 
Partiarch  of  the  Roman  lands  and  of  all  Western  people."1  He 
asks  and  obtains  leave  to  celebrate  his  liturgy  in  Rome.  The 
people  say :  "  The  language  is  different,  but  the  rite  is  the  same." 
Clearly  they  were  no  great  scholars  in  liturgy.  On  Palm  Sunday 
Sauma  attends  the  Pope's  Mass  and  receives  Holy  Communion 
from  him.  This  is  probably  the  only  time  in  history  that 
a  Nestorian  has  done  so.  He  sees  and  describes  all  the  Holy 
Week  services  in  Rome.  The  Pope  gives  him  relics  "  because 
you  have  come  from  so  far."  He  had  apparently  received  money 
from  everyone,  after  the  manner  of  Nestorians  who  come  to 
Europe.  At  last  he  arrives  home  again,  and  tells  all  his  adventures 
to  Argon  Khan,  "  who  was  glad  and  exulted  with  joy."2 

1  One  would  not,  of  course,  expect  a  Nestorian  to  admit  more  than  this. 
But  the  surprise  of  seeing  this  Chinese  Christian  seems  to  have  made  the 
Romans  easily  satisfied  with  his  position. 

2  For  all  this  see  Chabot :  Histoire  de  Mar  Jab-Alaha  {op.  cit.). 


ioo   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

But  the  insecurity  of  the  Nestorians  under  Mongol  rule  was 
shown  by  another  adventure  of  Yaballaha  III.  In  1295  he  was 
seized  by  a  vicious  governor,  tortured,  and  only  released  when  he 
had  paid  20,000  dinars  to  his  persecutor. 

These  years  of  comparative  ease  and  splendour  under  the  Mon- 
gols are  the  last  rays  of  light  in  the  story  of  the  Nestorians.  We 
come  now  to  a  frightful  storm  and  then  dark  night  for  many 
centuries. 

The  storm  is  the  work  of  that  appalling  person  the  lame  Timur. 
Timur  Leng  was  a  rebel  Mongol  chieftain.  In  the  14th  century 
he  rose  against  the  Prince  of  the  House  of  Jengiz,  and  swept  with 
his  wild  hordes  like  a  hurricane  over  Asia.  He  set  up  his  throne 
at  Samarcand,  having  crushed  Turks  and  Mongols,  having  devas- 
tated Syria,  Persia,  India  and  China,  and  died  there  in  1405. 1 
Timur  finally  broke  the  Nestorian  Church.  Their  missions  went 
to  pieces,  countless  numbers  of  Nestorians  were  massacred  or 
apostatized. 

Fleeing  from  total  destruction,  the  Patriarch,  with  a  feeble 
remnant,  took  refuge  in  the  Highlands  of  Kurdistan.  So  we  come 
to  the  last  act  of  their  story.  Since  the  14th  century,  the  Nes- 
torians remain  a  tiny  handful  of  families  in  Kurdistan  and  the 
plain  of  Mesopotamia.  They  were  almost  forgotten  by  Europe 
till  Western  travellers  rediscovered  them  in  the  19th  century. 
There  is  not  much  to  chronicle  from  this  last  period. 

After  the  storm  of  Timur  Leng  had  passed,  the  modern  states 
of  Turkey  and  Persia  appear.  The  Ottoman  Turks  had  already 
entered  the  scene  in  the  13th  century,  and  Persia  became  an  inde- 
pendent state  in  the  15th  (pp.  27-28).  So  the  Nestorians  found 
themselves  on  the  frontier  of  these  two  Moslem  countries.  That  is 
so  still.  They  live  around  the  frontier,  some  on  one  side  and  some 
on  the  other.  The  Patriarch  lived  for  a  long  time  at  Mosul,  some- 
time at  Marga,  east  of  Lake  Urmi  (in  Persia) ;  now  he 2  has  lived 
for  about  a  century  at  the  village  Kudshanis,  in  the  mountains 
on  the  Turkish  side. 

1  For  Timur  Leng  (Tamerlane)  see  Gibbon's  lxvth  chapter  (ed.  cit.  vol.  vii. 
pp.  44-68). 

2  Namely,  the  Patriarch  of  the  present  Nestorian  line  ;  for  there  have 
been  disputed  successions,  with  the  curious  result  noted  at  p.  103. 


THE   NESTORIAN   CHURCH  IN    THE   PAST  101 

About  the  middle  of  the  15th  century  the  Patriarchate  became 
hereditary — no  doubt  gradually.  The  electors  chose  the  nephew 
of  the  last  Patriarch,  who  had  been  brought  up  under  his  care 
and  had  learned  in  his  house  how  to  follow  his  footsteps.  Then 
this  became  a  regular  principle.  So  we  come  to  one  of  the  chief 
abuses  of  the  modern  Nestorians,  the  existence  of  a  "  Patriarchal 
family."  The  Patriarch  may  not  marry,  so  the  office  passes 
from  uncle  to  nephew,  as  we  shall  see  when  we  come  to  the  present 
conditions  (p.  130).  In  the  year  1551  began  a  great  dispute  about 
the  succession,  whose  results  still  last.  This  question  also  affects 
the  Uniate  Chaldees,  since  out  of  the  quarrel  emerged  their  lines 
of  Patriarchs  too.  But,  as  it  also  affects  the  Nestorians  pro- 
foundly, we  must  tell  the  story  here.  Its  final  result  is  very 
curious. 

In  155 1  Simon  (Shim'un)  Bar-Mama,  the  Patriarch,  died.  It 
was  in  his  house  (the  family  of  Mama)  that  the  Patriarchate  had 
become  hereditary.  So  a  number  of  bishops  duly  elect  his  nephew 
Simon  Denha  to  succeed  him.  But  others  and  the  Nestorian 
"notables/'1  apparently  in  order  to  break  the  hereditary  idea, 
elect  a  monk  of  the  Rabban  Hurmizd  monastery  (p.  135)  named 
Sa'ud,2  whose  name  in  religion  was  John  Sulaka.3  Sulaka  be- 
comes a  very  important  person  ;  he  was  the  first  Uniate  Patriarch 
of  a  continuous  line.4  In  order  to  fortify  himself  against  his  rival 
he  makes  friends  with  the  Catholic  Franciscan  missionaries,  who 
were  already  working  among  the  Nestorians.  They  send  him  to 
Jerusalem,  and  there  the  "  Custos  s.  sepulchri "  gives  him  letters 
for  the  Pope.  He  comes  to  Rome,  makes  a  Catholic  profession  of 
faith,  and  is  ordained  Patriarch  by  Pope  Julius  III  (1550-1555) 
on  Apr.  9, 1553.  Then  he  went  back  as  a  Uniate  Patriarch,  hoping 
to  gather  all  Nestorians  under  his  authority.  But  in  1555  he  was 
imprisoned  by  the  Pasha  of  Diyarbakr,  and  murdered  in  prison  by 
the  machinations  of  his  rival.  We  now  have  two  successions  of 
rival  Patriarchs — no  uncommon  occurrence  in  this  Church.  We 
will  take  Sulaka's  line  first.     He  was  succeeded  by  one  'Ebed- 

1  These  "  notables  "  are  the  heads  of  the  chief  families  who  succeed  the 
o  d  courtiers  (scribes  and  physicians)  in  their  influence  on  elections  (p.  93). 

2  Arabic  =  "  Blessed."  3  "Ascension." 
4  There  had  been  temporary  reunions  before. 


102   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

yeshu',1  who  kept  the  union  faithfully,  and  received  the  pallium 
from  Pope  Pius  IV  (1559-1565).2  He  died  in  1567.  Then  came 
Aitallaha,  apparently  also  a  Catholic.  After  Aitallaha  came 
Denha  Shim'un,  who  suffered  much  during  the  war  between 
Turkey  and  Persia,  fled  to  Persia,  and  died  there  in  1593.  Mean- 
while the  flock  of  these  Partiarchs  became  more  and  more  anti- 
Roman  in  feeling.  The  union  seems  to  have  been  kept  up  fitfully  ; 
that  is  to  say,  Patriarchs  of  this  line  occasionally  sent  Catholic 
professions  of  faith  and  protestations  of  obedience  to  Rome,  receiv- 
ing in  return  the  pallium  ;  others  did  not,  and  the  mass  of  clergy 
and  people  were  probably  but  little  conscious  of  the  difference 
thereby  made.  All  Patriarchs  of  this  line  of  Sulaka  took  the  name 
Simon  (Mar  Shim'un).  In  the  17th  century,  Mar  Shim'un  VII  went 
to  reside  at  Urmi ;  his  successor  and  Mar  Shim'un  IX  both  sent 
Catholic  professions  to  Rome.  In  1670  Mar  Shim'un  XII  sent 
the  last  of  these  professions.  From  that  time  relations  with  Rome 
dropped  ;  except  that  in  1770  one  of  the  Patriarchs  wrote  to  Pope 
Clement  XIV  (1769-1774)  expressing  his  desire  to  restore  the 
union.  But  by  now  they  and  their  flocks  had  quietly  dropped 
back  into  schism.  In  the  18th  century  they  moved  to  Kudshanis, 
as  we  have  said,  apparently  in  consequence  of  a  Turkish-Persian 
war.  Here  the  present  Mar  Shim'un,  the  reigning  Nestorian 
Patriarch,  lives.  The  curious  fact  is  that  he  does  not  represent 
the  old  Nestorian  line  from  Papa,  Dadyeshu'  and  Mar  Aba,  but 
the  originally  Uniate  line  of  Sulaka.  So  people  who  inveigh 
against  Uniate  secessions  from  the  ancient  Eastern  Churches 
should  count  Mar  Shim'un  as  merely  the  head  of  a  schismatical 
secession  from  the  ancient  Persian  Church. 

Meanwhile  the  rival  line  of  Bar  Mama,  went  on.  These  Patri- 
archs all  took  the  name  Elias  (Eliya).  Sulaka's  rival  Shim'un 
Denha  is  said  to  have  made  his  two  illegitimate  children  bishops 
at  the  ages  of  twelve  and  fifteen.  If  this  be  true,  Baron  d'Avril 
seems  to  have  some  reason  for  describing  him  as  "  hardly  estim- 
able." 3  His  successors  also  negotiated  with  Rome.  Elias  V 
sent  a  profession  of  faith,  which,  however,  Pope  Sixtus  V  (1585- 

1  'Bedyeshu  ,  "  Servant  of  Jesus." 

2  He  was  present  at  the  last  session  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  Dec.  4,  1563. 

3  La  Chaldee  chretienne,  p.  45. 


THE   NESTORIAN   CHURCH   IN    THE   PAST     103 

1590)  rejected  as  stained  with  Nest  onanism.1  In  1607  Elias  VI 
sent  a  sound  profession  and  was  admitted  to  union  ;  so  did  Elias 
VII  in  1657.  So  at  this  time  both  the  lines  of  Sulaka  and  Bar 
Mama  were  Uniate  ;  there  were  two  Uniate  Patriarchs  of  the 
Chaldees,  an  Elias  at  Mosul  in  the  plains  and  a  Mar  Shim'un  at 
Urmi.  But  the  line  of  Bar  Mama  fell  away  too  after  Elias  VII. 
In  the  middle  of  the  18th  century  a  certain  Joseph,  Metropolitan 
of  Diyarbakr,  renounced  his  allegiance  to  Elias  VIII,  because  Elias 
had  broken  with  the  Pope.  Joseph  came  to  Rome  and  received 
a  pallium  as  Uniate  Patriarch.  This  begins  a  third  line,  all 
Uniate,  which  lasted  till  1826  and  then  disappeared,  because  the 
line  of  Bar  Mama  had  come  back  to  union  (p.  129).  Since  1830 
this  line  of  Bar  Mama,  really  the  only  one  which  has  direct 
continuity  from  the  old  Persian  Katholikoi,  is  Uniate.  So  we 
have  the  curious  situation  that  the  present  Nestorian  Patriarch 
represents  the  originally  Uniate  succession  of  Sulaka,  and  the 
Uniate  Chaldaean  Patriarch  the  old  Nestorian  line.2 

There  is  nothing  now  to  add  about  the  Nestorians  till  we  come 
to  their  present  state.  A  little  group  of  families  in  Kurdistan  and 
around  Lake  Urmi,  they  have  been  at  intervals  horribly  perse- 
cuted by  the  Kurds,  never  more  than  in  the  19th  century.  Then 
comes  their  rediscovery  by  Western  travellers  and  missionaries, 
which  will  be  described  later  (pp.  1 15-126). 

2.  Nestorian  Missions 

We  must  note  something  about  what  is  the  most  interesting  and 
the  most  glorious  episode  in  the  history  of  this  Church — its  missions. 
During  the  long  period  we  have  been  discussing,  down  to  Timur 
Leng's  destruction  of  everything,  the  Nestorians  had  flourishing 
missions  all  over  Asia.     As  long  as  the  empire  lasted  they  were 

1  Dr.  Neale  appears  to  be  pleasantly  surprised  that  no  Pope  would  accept 
a  Nestorian  profession  of  faith  ;  this  he  thinks  a  point  in  their  favour  (in 
Badger's  Nestorians  and  their  Rituals,  i,  404).  One  is  glad  that  he  is 
pleased,  but  really  these  people  are  amazing.  Apparently  they  think  Rome 
quite  capable  of  throwing  overboard  Ephesus,  if  it  suits  her  purpose. 

2  For  all  this  see  J.  Labourt :  "Note  sur  les  schismes  de  1'liglise 
Nestorienne,"  in  the  Journal  asiatique ,  x.  serie,  vol.  xi.  (1908),  pp.  227-235; 
and  A.  d'Avril  :   La  Chaldie  chretienne,  pp.  43-47. 


104        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

prevented  from  entering  its  territory,  since  Zeno  drove  them  out 
in  489  (p.  78).  But  they  had  a  force  of  expansion  which  would 
honour  any  Christian  Church.  Shut  off  from  the  West,  they 
reached  out  towards  the  East  and  carried  the  name  of  Christ  to 
India,  Turkestan  and  China. 

In  the  West  the  Nestorians  had  tried  to  push  their  doctrine. 
Under  the  Moslem  Khalif  the  Roman  anti-Nestorian  laws,  of 
course,  had  no  force  ;  so  they  sent  missionaries  to  Syria,  Palestine, 
Cyprus.  In  Cyprus  they  had  churches  and  a  Metropolitan,  who 
has  some  importance  as  having  come  into  union  at  the  Council  of 
Florence.1  Even  in  Egypt  there  were  Nestorian  congregations, 
in  the  very  home  of  Monophysism.  Under  the  Patriarch  Mar 
Aba  II  (742-752)  the  Nestorians  of  Egypt  had  a  bishop  under  the 
(Nestorian)  Metropolitan  of  Damascus.  In  Arabia  they  had  still 
older  settlements.  Mohammed  is  often  said  to  have  learned  what 
he  knew  of  Christianity  from  a  Nestorian  monk  (p.  92,  n.  4).  In 
the  6th  century  Nestorian  missionaries  had  founded  a  great  Church 
along  the  west  coast  of  India.  This  is  to  us  their  most  important 
mission,  because  it  has  had  a  long  history  of  its  own  and  still 
exists.  It  is  the  Church  of  Malabar,  of  which  in  Chapter  XI. 
Here  it  shall  be  enough  to  note  that  the  Arabian  and  Indian 
missions  were  under  the  Bishop  of  Persis  (Pares).  In  Ceylon,  too, 
there  were  Nestorians  in  the  6th  century.  When  Kosmas 
Indikopleustes  travelled  in  those  regions  (about  530)  he  found 
Christians  in  Ceylon,  India,  and  a  bishop  at  Kalliana  2  who  was 
ordained  in  Persia.3  In  Khorasan  they  had  flourishing  churches. 
In  the  7th  century  the  Katholikos  Yeshu'yab  complains  to  Simon 
Metropolitan  of  Yakut  that  he  is  neglecting  the  churches  of  Merv 
and  Khorasan.4  The  island  of  Socotra  (Dioscorides)  had  a 
Nestorian  church  in  the  6th  century.  Kosmas  Indikopleustes 
speaks  of  Christians  there ;  5   in  880  the  Katholikos  Enush  sent 

1  One  of  the  ruined  churches  of  Famagusta  is  still  known  as  the  Nestorian 
church  ;  see  Enlart  :  L'Art  gothique  et  la  renaissance  en  Chypre  (Paris, 
1899),  i.  356-365.  2  Now  Kalyana,  near  Bombay. 

3  Ed.  M'Crindle  :  The  Christian  Topography  of  Cosrnas,  an  Egyptian 
Monk  (London,  Hakluyt  Soc,  1897),  PP-  IJ&»  I2°>  3^5-  Kosmas  calls  these 
"  Persian  Christians."     He  was  probably  himself  a  Nestorian. 

4  His  letter  is  in  Assemani  :   Bibl.  Orient,  iii.  (part  1),  130-131. 

5  Ed.  cit.  p.  119. 


THE   NESTORIAN   CHURCH   IN    THE   PAST     105 

them  a  bishop,  in  the  nth  century  Sbaryeshu'  III  (1057-1072) 
ordained  one  bishop  for  the  islands  of  the  Indian  see  and  another 
for  Socotra  ;  x  Marco  Polo  speaks  of  Christians  in  Socotra  and  of 
"  an  archbishop  who  is  not  in  subjection  to  the  Pope  of  Rome, 
but  to  a  Patriarch  who  resides  in  the  city  of  Baghdad."  2  Marco 
Polo,  the  valiant  Venetian  traveller  of  the  13th  century,  is  our 
witness  for  many  outlying  Nestorian  missions.  Again,  a  certain 
Kyriakos  (so-called),  Bishop  of  Socotra,  was  present  at  the 
ordination  of  Yaballaha  III  at  Bagdad  in  1282. 3  From  Khorasan 
and  India  Nestorian  missionaries  pushed  north  and  east.  In 
the  strangest  and  most  inaccessible  places  Marco  Polo  found 
flourishing  Nestorian  communities.  At  Samarcand  they  had  a 
church,  of  which  he  tells  how  its  central  column  was  upheld 
miraculously  ;  he  says  that  a  brother  of  the  Grand  Khan  was  a 
Christian  convert.4  Near  there  is  the  province  of  Karkan,  whose 
inhabitants  are  "  for  the  most  part  Mahometans,  with  some 
Nestorian  Christians."  5  At  Kashkar  the  Nestorians  have  their 
own  churches.6  So  Christianity  spread  into  Tartary  and  Turk- 
estan, at  Balkh  and  Herat.  In  all  these  places  in  the  12th  and 
13th  centuries  we  hear  of  Nestorian  bishops  who  obeyed  the 
Patriarch  at  Bagdad.  A  specially  curious  case  is  that  of  the  land 
of  Tenduch  or  Tenduk,  just  south  of  Lake  Baikal.  Its  capital 
was  the  city  Karakorum.  Since  the  nth  century  there  was  so 
flourishing  a  Nestorian  Church  here  that  the  country  and  the 
Government  were  Christian.  The  prince  was  named  Owang  or 
Unk  Khan.  He  was  a  Christian.  The  name  seems  to  have  been 
a  hereditary  one,  passing  from  one  sovereign  to  another.  Owang 
is  not  unlike  Ioannes.  So  through  the  Middle  Ages  in  Europe 
grew  up  a  wonderful  legend  of  that  distant  Christian  prince.  By 
a  natural  exaggeration  they  made  this  head  of  a  Christian  com- 

1  Lequien  :   Or.  Christ,  ii.  1141. 

2  William  Marsden's  translation,  chap.  xxxv.  (ed.  by  Thomas  Wright, 
G.  Newnes,  1904,  p.  371).  But  these  people  may  possibly  have  been 
Jacobites,  as  the  Portuguese  thought,  when  they  came  (ib.,  note)  On  the 
other  hand,  there  are  many  authorities  besides  Marco  Polo  for  their  con  • 
nection  with  the  Nestorian  Patriarch.  Did  they  fluctuate  from  one  sect 
to  the  other,  like  the  people  of  Malabar  ? 

3  Avril  :    La  Chaldee  chretienne,  p.  16. 

4  Marco  Polo,  chap.  xxxi.  (ed.  cit.  p.  84).  6  Chap,  xxxii.  (p.  85). 
6  Chap.  xxx.  (p.  83). 


106   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

munity  into  an  ecclesiastical  person.  He  is  the  famous  Pr ester 
John,  King  and  Priest.  Marco  Polo  has  much  to  say  of  him.1 
The  Crusaders  in  their  most  hopeless  moments  always  hoped  that 
suddenly  from  the  East  Prester  John  would  come,  leading  an 
army  to  help  them.  A  certain  Bishop  of  Gabula  was  said  to  have 
written  to  Pope  Eugene  III  (1145-1153)  about  this  John,  "  rex 
et  sacerdos,"  who,  with  his  people,  was  a  Christian,  though  a 
Nestorian.2  Alexander  III  (1159-1181)  sent  messages  to  "  In- 
dorum  regi,  sacerdotum  sanctissimo."  3  John  of  Monte  Corvino, 
the  first  Catholic  bishop  in  China,  in  1305,  writes  about  Prester 
John.4  Then  the  legend  shifts  its  ground  and  this  strange  figure 
becomes  a  King  of  Abyssinia.  The  legend  has  a  long  story.5  Its 
first  source  seems  to  be  clearly  the  Nestorian  Khan  of  Tenduch. 
One  can  understand  how  the  mediaeval  imagination  was  fired  by 
that  dream  of  a  mighty  king  and  pontiff,  reigning  over  a  great 
Christian  nation  out  in  the  unknown  wilds  of  Central  Asia,  who 
some  day  would  appear  in  the  East,  leading  an  army  under  the 
standard  of  the  cross  to  save  the  Crusaders'  kingdom. 

Then,  from  Khorasan,  Turkestan  and  India  the  Gospel  was 
brought  to  the  great  land  of  China.  It  is  strange,  when  we  read  of 
the  first  Catholic  mission  to  China,  to  realize  that  many  centuries 
earlier  Nestorian  missionaries  had  been  there,  that  there  had  been 
native  Nestorian  Christians  and  a  Nestorian  hierarchy.  We  do 
not  know  how  early  the  missionaries  came  ;  but  already  in  the 
early  8th  century  the  Patriarch  Slibazka6 1  (714-726)  ordained  a 
Metropolitan  for  China.7  This  Chinese  Nestorian  Church,  too, 
lasted  till  Timur's  devastation.  We  have  seen  that  Yaballaha  III 
came  from  China  (p.  97).  Chinese  Nestorianism  has  left  monu- 
ments.    The  most  astonishing  of  these  is  the  tablet  of  Si-ngan-fu. 

1  Chaps,  xliv.,  liv.,  lv. 

2  Prot.  Real-Enc.  (Herzog  and  Hauck)  :  "Johannes  Presbyter"  (3rd 
ed.,  Leipzig,  1901),  ix.  313.  3  lb. 

4  lb.  p.  313.  John  of  Monte  Corvino,  O.F.M.,  titular  Archbishop  of 
Cambalia,  converted  a  descendant  of  Owang  and  all  his  subjects  to  the 
Catholic  Church  in  1292.     But  the  union  did  not  last. 

5  See  G.  Oppert :  Der  Presbyter  Johannes  in  Sage  u.  Geschichte,  2nd  ed., 
Berlin,  1870. 

6  "  The  Crucified  has  conquered." 

7  Assemani:  Bibl.  Orient,  iii.  (part  2),  p.  426.  A  considerable  account 
of  Nestorian  missions  will  be  found  here,  pp.  414-434. 


THE   NESTORIAN   CHURCH   IN    THE   PAST     107 

Si-ngan-fu  is  in  Middle  China,  in  the  province  of  Shen-si.  Here, 
in  1625,  Jesuit  missionaries  found  a  stone  with  a  long  inscription 
in  Chinese  and  Syriac.  At  first  Protestants  said  they  had  forged 
it  themselves  ;  now  no  one  doubts  its  authenticity.  For  one 
thing,  if  the  Jesuits  had  forged  it  they  would  have  done  it  better. 
The  Chinese  part  is  apparently  very  difficult  to  translate.  But 
there  is  no  doubt  that  it  is  a  monument  put  up  by  Nestorians  in 
honour  of  their  religion.  It  is  dated  (in  our  reckoning)  781.  It  is 
long  and  involved,  as  Chinese  inscriptions  are.  It  has  as  title  : 
"  Tablet  eulogizing  the  propagation  of  the  illustrious  religion  in 
China,  with  a  preface  composed  by  King-tsing,  priest  of  the  Syrian 
Church."  Then  it  begins  :  "  Behold  the  unchangeably  true  and 
invisible,  who  existed  through  all  eternity  without  origin,"  etc. 
"  This  is  our  eternal  true  Lord  God,  threefold  and  mysterious  in 
substance.  He  appointed  the  cross  as  the  means  for  determining 
the  four  cardinal  points,"  etc.  Lower  down  :  "  Thereupon,  our 
Trinity  being  divided  in  nature,1  the  illustrious  and  honourable 
Messiah,  veiling  his  true  dignity,  appeared  in  the  world  as  a  man." 
"  A  virgin  gave  birth  to  the  Holy  One  in  Syria."  An  account  of 
Christianity,  of  the  Bible,  of  Christian  morals  follows.  Then  : 
"  It  is  difficult  to  find  a  name  to  express  the  excellence  of  the  true 
and  unchangeable  doctrine  ;  but  as  its  meritorious  operations  are 
manifestly  displayed,  by  accommodation  it  is  named  the  Illus- 
trious Religion."  "  In  the  time  of  the  accomplished  Emperor 
Taitsung,  the  illustrious  and  magnificent  founder  of  the  dynasty, 
among  the  enlightened  and  holy  men  who  arrived  was  the  most 
virtuous  Olopun  2  from  the  country  of  Syria.  Observing  the 
azure  clouds,  he  bore  the  true  sacred  books  ;  beholding  the  direc- 
tion of  the  winds,  he  braved  difficulties  and  dangers."  This 
Olopun  is  said  to  have  arrived  in  the  year  635  ;  which  would  give  us 
a  date  for  the  first  missionary  in  this  part  of  China.  The  in- 
scription goes  on  at  great  length,  praising  the  Chinese  king  and 
describing  a  most  flourishing  and  widespread  Christianity  under 
his  rule.  And  this  in  781  !  Finally  :  "  This  was  erected  in  the 
second  year  of  Kien-chung  of  the  Tang  dynasty,  on  the  seventh 

1  There  are  several  curious  heresies  of  this  kind  which  combine  to  exon- 
erate the  Jesuits  from  having  forged  it. 

2  Olopun  or  Olopwen  is  perhaps  Syriac  =Allahd-pn&.  "  God  convert^." 


108        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

day  of  the  first  month,  being  Sunday."  That  is  our  year  781.  In 
Syriac  are  names  of  missionaries  and  founders  of  the  monument. 
For  instance  :  .  "  Adam,  deacon,  Vicar  episcopal  and  Pope  of 
China.  In  the  time  of  the  Father  of  Fathers,  the  Lord  John 
Joshua,  the  Universal  Patriarch."  x  This  monument  also  gives 
wonderful  matter  for  the  imagination.  Discovered  by  accident 
nearly  a  thousand  years  later,  it  brought  across  that  silent  chasm 
its  witness  of  a  forgotten  Church,  lost  centuries  before  in  the 
storms  that  swept  over  Asia.  Now,  looking  back  through  the 
mist,  we  have  a  glimpse  of  Olopun  observing  the  azure  clouds  and 
bringing  the  true  sacred  books  to  the  accomplished  Emperor 
Taitsung,  bringing  the  Illustrious  Religion  to  China,  thirteen 
centuries  ago. 

This  outline  of  their  missions  will  shew  that  the  Nestorians 
before  Timur  Leng  were  a  vast  and  mighty  Church.  In  the  13th 
century  twenty-five  Metropolitans  obeyed  the  Nestorian  Patriarch.2 
Allowing  an  average  of  eight  to  ten  sees  for  each  province,  this 
represents  a  hierarchy  of  two  hundred  to  two  hundred  and 
fifty  bishops.  There  is,  perhaps,  some  excuse  for  what  is,  of 
course,  really  a  gross  exaggeration  of  Neale,  that  "it  may  be 
doubted  whether  Innocent  III  possessed  more  spiritual  power 
than  the  Patriarch  in  the  city  of  the  Caliphs."  3 

All  these  missions  have  been  swept  away  long  ago.  In  Cyprus 
the  Nestorians  became  Uniates.  In  Socotra  they  were  Uniates 
for  a  time  under  the  Portuguese  ;  4  then  the  Arabs  wiped  out 
Christianity  from  the  island.  But  it  was  chiefly  the  tempest 
aroused  by  Timur  Leng  which  overturned  the  Nestorian  mission 
churches.  After  his  time  no  Christians  were  left  in  Central  Asia, 
the  churches  were  destroyed,  the  lines  of  bishops  came  to  an  end. 
The  whole  Nestorian  body  was  reduced  to  a  frightened  remnant 
hiding  in  the  wilds  of  Kurdistan  (p.  100).     Only  one  mission  at 

1  Assemani :  Bibl.  Orient,  iii.  (part  2),  pp.  538-552,  gives  a  long  descrip- 
tion of  the  monument  and  a  translation  of  the  inscription.  Cf.  P.  Cams  : 
The  Nestorian  Monument  (Chicago  :  Open  Court  Publishing  Co.,  1909), 
with  illustrations  of  the  stone.  H  Thurston,  S.  J. :  "  Christianity  in  the  Far 
East,"  II.,  The  Month,  Oct.  1912,  pp.  382-394. 

2  Assemani  :   Bibl.  Orient,  iii.  (part  2),  p.  630. 

3  A  History  of  the  Holy  Eastern  Church,  i.  p.  143. 

4  St.  Francis  Xavier  preached  here  in  1542. 


THE  NESTORIAN   CHURCH  IN  THE  PAST     109 

Malabar  survived  (pp.  353-358)  ;  and  here  and  there  a  broken 
stone  bearing  a  cross  and  Syriac  letters  is  found,  to  bear  witness 
that  once  Christ  was  worshipped  in  Tatary  and  China. 

There  is  another  curious  relic  of  Nestorianism  in  Asia,  which  we 
may  just  notice.  Everyone  has  heard  how  strangely  Christian 
or  Catholic  in  external  details  is  the  Lamaism  of  Tibet.  We 
know  that  Lamaist  monks  have  a  hierarchy  and  many  rites  like 
ours.  People  have  tried  to  make  anti-Christian  capital  out  of 
this.  Since  Lamaism  is  Buddhism  of  a  sort,  and  Buddha  lived 
before  Christ,  it  is  sometimes  said  that  we  have  borrowed  these 
things  from  them.  All  kinds  of  dependence  have  been  suggested, 
even  the  ridiculous  idea  that  our  Lord  travelled  to  Central  Asia 
and  studied  there  under  Buddhist  monks.  Now,  in  the  first 
place,  Lamaism  is  a  quite  late  degradation  of  Buddhism,  intro- 
duced into  Tibet  about  640  a.d.  ;  x  and,  secondly,  the  mysterious 
likeness  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  at  that  time  there  were 
flourishing  Nestorian  churches,  with  an  elaborate  ritual,  all  over 
these  parts.  Lamaist  monasticism,  holy  water,  incense,  vest- 
ments are  nothing  but  debased  copies  of  what  the  natives  had 
seen  among  the  Nestorians.  There  is  nothing  mysterious  about 
these  things.  At  the  source  of  the  Lamaist  ritual  which  so 
surprises  the  modern  explorer  stand  a  Nestorian  monastery  and  a 
Nestorian  bishop  celebrating  his  liturgy.2 

These  missions  are  the  most  remarkable  and  the  most  glorious 
episode  in  Nestorian  history.  It  would  be  cruelly  unjust  to 
forget  them.  We  think  of  the  Nestorians  as  a  wretched  heretical 
sect,  cut  off  from  the  Catholic  Church  and  so  gradually  withering. 
They  are  that.  But  there  is  another  side  too.  For  a  time,  as  long 
as  they  could,  they  did  their  share  in  the  common  Christian  cause 
heroically.  While  they  were  cut  off  from  the  West,  denounced 
by  Catholics,  Orthodox  and  Jacobites,  while  we  thought  of  them 
as  a  dying  sect  in  Persia,  they  were  sending  missions  all  over  Asia. 
Those  forgotten  Nestorian  missionaries,  they  were  not  Catholics 
but  they  were  Christians.  Braving  long  j ourneys,  braving  heathen 
tyrants  and  horrible  danger,  they  brought  the  name  of  Christ 
north  to  Lake  Baikal,  south  to  Ceylon,  and  east  right  into  the 

1  L.  A.  VVaddell  :    The  Buddhism  of  Tibet,  London,  1895,  p.  9 

2  lb.  421-422. 


no        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

heart  of  China.  They  must  have  baptized  thousands,  and  they 
taught  the  wild  men  of  Tartary  to  worship  one  God,  to  serve 
Christ,  even  if  they  did  think  him  two  hypostases,  to  love  his 
mother,  even  if  they  did  not  call  her  Theotokos.  Let  that  be 
remembered  to  their  honour. 


3.  Nestorian  Monasticism 

There  are  now  no  Nestorian  monasteries  and  few  monks  or 
nuns.  What  remnant  there  is  of  East  Syrian  monasticism  is  only 
to  be  found  among  the  Uniate  Chaldees.  But  monasticism  was 
once  a  very  flourishing  institution  in  this  Church.  It  played  so 
great  a  part  in  their  history  that  we  must  say  at  least  a  word 
about  it  here. 

Their  own  tradition  is  that  a  certain  Augin  1  brought  the 
monastic  life  from  Egypt  in  the  4th  century.  He  had  been  a 
pearl  fisherman  in  the  Red  Sea.  Then  he  became  a  monk  in  the 
Nitrian  desert,  and  eventually,  with  seventy  companions,  set  out 
for  Nisibis.  Here  he  founded  the  first  East  Syrian  monastery  on 
Mount  Izla,  near  the  city.  Three  hundred  and  fifty  disciples 
gathered  round  him  and  kept  the  rule  he  had  brought  from  the 
Fathers  of  the  Egyptian  desert.  So  Mar  Augin  of  Egypt  founded 
monasticism  in  the  East.2  Most  modern  scholars  doubt  this 
story  altogether.3  As  a  matter  of  fact,  monasticism  was  already 
so  established  in  Western  Syria  that  it  must  have  spread  eastwards 
with  Christianity.  There  is  no  need  to  look  for  the  name  of 
one  special  founder  here.  Monks  came,  probably  as  the  first 
missionaries,  and  monasteries  were  built  as  soon  as  churches.  So 
East  Syria  and  Persia  received  monasticism  simply  as  a  natural 
part  of  the  Christian  system.  We  have  seen  that  in  very  early 
days  there  were  "  sons  "  and  "  daughters  of  the  Covenant  "  in 
the  East  Syrian  Church  (p.  43).  This  was  the  beginning  which 
only  needed  organization  to  develop  into  regular  monasticism. 

1  Eugene. 

2  His  legend  is  told  in  P.  Bejan  :  Acta  martyrum  et  sanctorum  (Leipzig, 
1890-1895).  iii.  pp.  376-480. 

3  So  Labourt :  Le  Christianisme  dans  V empire  perse,  pp.  302-314.  The 
significant  fact  is  that  Thomas  of  Marga  in  the  work  quoted  below  (p.  112) 
ignores  Augin  altogether. 


THE  NESTORIAN   CHURCH  IN   THE  PAST     ill 

During  the  5th  century,  when  the  Persian  Church  was  in  its  lowest 
state  and  all  celibacy  was  abolished  among  the  clergy  (p.  81),  a 
synod  ordained  contemptuously  that  anyone  who  wanted  not  to 
marry  had  better  go  to  a  monastery.1  But  about  this  time  we 
hear  of  even  monks  and  nuns  marrying.2  Now,  monasticism 
without  celibacy  is  no  monasticism  at  all.  Always  the  "  angelic  " 
life  has  been  the  essence  of  what  we  called  religious  orders.  So, 
in  the  5th  century,  the  religious  life  was  nearly  extinct  in  Persia. 
In  the  6th  century  came  a  great  reform  and  a  new  beginning  of 
monasticism.3  This  was  made  by  Abraham  of  Kashkar,  called 
the  Great.  He  is  the  second  founder  of  Persian  monastic  life, 
the  organizer  and  head  of  all  its  later  developement,  so  that  he 
holds  a  place  analogous  to  that  of  St.  Basil  and  St.  Benedict. 

Abraham  was  born  in  491  or  492  in  the  land  of  Kashkar.4  He 
studied  at  Nisibis,  then  went  to  the  Egyptian  desert,  as  St.  Basil 
had  done,  to  learn  the  rule  of  monks  at  the  fountain-head  of 
Christian  monasticism.  After  staying  at  Sinai  and  other  famous 
centres  of  the  religious  life,  he  came  back  to  Nisibis  and  founded 
or  restored  a  monastery  at  Mount  Izla.  Here  he  gathered  around 
him  a  great  number  of  monks,  who  then  spread  his  rule  throughout 
the  Persian  Church.  He  died  in  the  odour  of  sanctity,  aged  ninety- 
five,  in  586.  The  Nestorians  remember  Rabban  Abraham  the  Great 
rightly  as  the  "  Father  of  Monks."  Thomas  of  Marga  says  that 
God  "  established  him  to  be  the  father  of  the  army  of  virgins 
and  men  of  abstinence  " 5 ;  again  :  "As  formerly  everyone  who 
wished  to  learn  and  become  a  master  of  the  heathen  philosophy 
of  the  Greeks  went  to  Athens,  the  famous  city  of  philosophers,  so 
in  this  case  everyone  who  desired  to  be  instructed  in  spiritual 
philosophy  went  to  the  holy  monastery  of  Rabban  Mar  Abraham 
and   inscribed   himself  in  sonship  to  him."  6     After  him   came 

1  Synod  of  Acacius  in  486  (p.  81),  Can.  ii.  (Chabot  :  Synodicon  orientale, 
pp.  302-303)  :  "  Let  them  go  into  monasteries  and  wild  places  and  stay- 
there." 

2  Bar  Sauma  married  a  nun  (p.  81).  In  499  a  synod  allowed  monks 
to  marry  ;  ib.  n.  1. 

3  It  was  part  of  Mar  Aba's  general  reform  of  the  Church;    see  p.  83. 

4  In  Mesopotamia,  south  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon. 

5  Book  of  Governors,  ed.  by  E.  A.  Wallis  Budge  (2  vols.,  London,  1893)  '> 
ii.  p.  38. 

6  Ib.  p.  42.     See  all  the  chapter  (37-42)  for  Abraham's  life 


ii2    THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Dadyeshu'  as  abbot.1  Their  rules  have  been  preserved.2  These 
are  merely  the  old  Egyptian  rule  slightly  modified  to  suit  Persia. 
Monks  wore  a  tunic,  belt,  cloak,  hood  and  sandals.  They  carried 
a  cross  and  a  stick.  The  Nestorian  monks  wore  a  tonsure  formed 
like  a  cross,  to  distinguish  them  from  those  of  the  Jacobites.3  At 
first  they  met  seven  times  a  day  for  common  prayer  (the  canonical 
hours).  Later  it  was  reduced  to  four  times.  They  worked  in  the 
fields  ;  those  who  could  copied  books.  They  abstained  from  flesh- 
meat  always,  ate  one  meal  (of  bread  and  vegetables)  a  day,  at  the 
sixth  hour  (mid-day).  Then  they  all  lay  down  and  slept  awhile. 
After  three  years  of  probation  a  monk  could,  with  the  abbot's 
leave,  retire  to  absolute  solitude  as  a  hermit.  After  Abraham 
of  Kashkar  celibacy  was,  of  course,  enforced  very  strictly. 
Nestorian  monks  were  always  subject  to  the  local  bishop  ;  all 
their  property,  for  instance,  was  administered  and  controlled 
by  him.  Labourt  counts  this  a  characteristic  note  of  Eastern 
monasticism,  and  notes  how  it  strengthened  the  hands  of  the 
hierarchy.4 

An  interesting  picture  of  Nestorian  monasticism  is  given  by 
Thomas  of  Marga  in  his  Book  of  Governors  (Ktaba  drishane), 
otherwise  called  Historia  monastica.  Thomas  was  a  monk  at 
Beth  'Abe  (a  dependency  of  Mount  Izla)  in  the  early  9th  century. 
He  became  Bishop  of  Marga,  and  eventually  Metropolitan  of  Beth 
Garmai,  north  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon,  east  of  the  Tigris.  He 
wrote  his  book  about  840.  It  is  a  collection  of  stories  of  monks, 
from  Abraham  of  Kashkar  down  to  his  own  time,  like  the  Historia 
Lausiaca  of  Palladius.5 

Labourt  thinks  that  the  Nestorians,  like  the  Jacobites,  owe  it  to 
their  monasteries  that  they  were  able  to  withstand  the  flood  of 
Islam.6    They  had  flourishing  monasteries,  with  many  famous 

1  lb.  chap.  v.  pp.  42-44. 

2  Chabot :  RegulcB  monastics  ab  Abraham  et  Dadjesu  conditcs  (Rome, 
1898)  ;  see  also  Wallis  Budge's  edition  of  Thomas  of  Marga,  vol.  i.  pp. 
cxxxiv-clvi,  and  Duval  :   Litterahcre  syriaque,  p.  180. 

3  Book  of  Governors,  ii.  40-41. 

4  Le  Christianisme  dans  V empire  perse,  p.  324. 

5  Dr.  E.  A.  Wallis  Budge  has  edited  it,  in  Syriac  and  English,  with  an 
introduction  about  Persian  monasticism  and  copious  notes  {The  Book  of 
Governors,  2  vols.,  Kegan  Paul,  1893). 

6  Op.  cit.  p.  324. 


THE   NESTORIAN   CHURCH  IN    THE  PAST     113 

monks  *  till  the  general  disaster  of  Timur  Leng.  Since  then  the 
religious  life  vegetates  only  among  them.  They  still  have  a  few 
wandering  monks,  but  no  longer  any  fixed  monasteries  (p.  135). 


Summary 

In  this  chapter  we  have  seen  a  general  picture  of  the  Nestorian 
Church  from  its  definite  adoption  of  that  heresy  till  the  19th 
century.  From  the  7th  century  at  latest  we  must  count  the 
ancient  Church  of  Persia  as  committed  to  the  heresy  condemned 
by  the  Council  of  Ephesus.  It  was  already  schismatical.  In  its 
isolation  this  Church  had  periods  of  great  degradation  alternately 
with  moral  revivals.  Mar  Aba  I,  in  the  6th  century,  deserves  to 
be  remembered  as  an  illustrious  reformer.  In  the  7th  century 
the  Moslem  Arabs  conquered  Persia  ;  so  the  Nestorian s  found 
themselves  under  new  masters.  The  Arab  capital  was  Bagdad  ; 
the  Nestorian  Patriarch  came  to  live  here,  and  for  about  six 
centuries  his  people  were  not  altogether  badly  treated,  while  they 
remained  the  chief  source  of  general  civilization  for  their  Moslem 
rulers.  Jengiz  Khan  did  them  no  great  harm  either.  During 
this  time  thay  had  most  nourishing  missions  all  over  Asia,  so  that 
their  Patriarch  was  head  of  a  large  hierarchy,  including  bishops 
even  in  China.  Timur  Leng  in  the  13th  century  put  an  end  to  all 
their  prosperity,  destroyed  their  missions,  and  left  them  a  poor 
remnant  in  Kurdistan.  Here  they  had  a  great  quarrel  about  the 
Patriarchal  succession  in  the  16th  century,  out  of  which  emerge 
rival  lines  and  the  beginning  of  reunion  with  Rome.  During  the 
time  before  Timur  Leng  monasticism  was  a  flourishing  institution 
among  them  ;  now  it  has  practically  disappeared. 

1  E.g.  Babai  the  Great  was  a  monk  of  Mount  Izla  (p.  83). 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  PRESENT  NESTORIAN  CHURCH 

We  come  at  last  to  what  is  left  of  this  ancient  Church.  The 
Nestorians  now  left  are  but  a  small  sect  of  little  importance  in  the 
great  Christian  family  ;  yet  behind  them  one  sees  their  glorious 
past,  the  martyrs  under  Shapur  II,  the  missionaries  who  brought 
the  Gospel  to  China.  If  only  for  the  sake  of  these  one  would 
speak  of  their  descendants  with  all  respect.  In  seeing  them  as 
they  now  are,  we  think  first  of  the  awful  calamity  of  their  schism. 
True,  they  have  kept  the  Christian  faith  nobly  during  all  those 
dark  centuries  of  degradation.  The  faith  of  Christ — and,  alas  !  of 
Nestorius — is  still  alive  where  once  the  school  of  Nisibis  argued 
against  Cyril  and  Ephesus.  Yet — if  only  they  had  kept  it  without 
the  isolation  of  schism  !  How  honoured  a  province  of  the  great 
Church  of  Christ  might  they  now  be,  how  strong  in  their  union 
with  the  mighty  Church  of  the  West !  One  would  like  to  go  back 
to  the  days  of  Bar  Sauma  and  Akak,  and  to  say  to  them  :  "  Never 
mind  about  Knuma  and  Kyana :  who  can  understand  these 
things  ?  Worship  Christ  as  does  the  rest  of  Christendom,  and 
wait  till  you  see  him  to  understand  his  nature.  And,  if  the  great 
Church  has  cast  out  Nestorius,  you  must  let  him  go  too.  At  any 
rate,  at  any  price  do  not  make  a  schism.  Trust  Christ  that  he  will 
not  let  his  Church  become  really  impossible,  and  stay  in  her 
whatever  happens."  Too  late  now  !  we  must  comfort  ourselves 
with  the  Chaldaean  Uniates. 

This  chapter  will  describe  the  hierarchy,  faith,  rites  and 
number  of  Nestorians  as  they  are  now.  But  first  we  may  clear 
the  ground  by  describing  what  is  practically  their  rediscovery  in 

114 


THE  PRESENT  NESTORIAN   CHURCH      115 

the  19th  century,  and  the  various  missions  which  work  among 
them. 

1.  The  Rediscovery  of  the  Nestorians 

The  word  rediscovery  is  not  inappropriate.  It  is  true  that  the 
little  sect  was  never  quite  forgotten.  People  knew  that  there 
were  still  Nestorians  in  Turkey  and  Persia.  The  authorities  of 
the  Catholic  Church  especially  were  always  conscious  of  them. 
Since  the  Crusades  we  have  had  missionaries  working  for  their 
reunion.  Since  the  16th  century  there  has  been  an  organized 
Uniate  Chaldsean  Church.  There  have  been  constant  negotia- 
tions between  East  Syrian  Patriarchs  and  Rome  ;  at  intervals 
practically  the  whole  body  has  come  back  to  union.  The  Asse- 
mani  and  Renaudot  knew  much  about  them.  Yet  the  general 
popular  interest  in  these  people,  especially  in  England  and 
America,  dates  from  what  was  practically  a  rediscovery  in  the 
19th  century. 

They  owe  this  in  the  first  place  to  the  presence  of  Assyrian 
ruins  in  their  land.  Claude  James  Rich,  Resident  of  the  British 
East  India  Company  in  Bagdad,  visited  the  ruins  of  Nineveh  in 
1820.  His  report  excited  great  interest  in  England  and  America.1 
From  that  time  begins  the  systematic  exploration  of  Assyrian 
remains,  in  which  A.  H.  Layard  made  for  himself  the  greatest 
name.2  These  explorers  brought  back  incidentally  reports  of  the 
Christians  they  had  found  in  those  parts.  Rich  mentions  them.3 
Layard  employed  Nestorian  workmen  to  excavate  for  him,  and 
gives  in  his  book  a  considerable  account  of  these  people.4  Two 
circumstances  combined  to  spread  this  interest.  One  was  the 
surprising  discovery  that  they  still  talked  Syriac  ;  that  this, 
therefore,  was  not  a  dead  language,  as  people  had  supposed.  It 
was  almost  as  astonishing  as  would  be  the  discovery  of  a  nation 
which  talks  Hebrew.  This  fact  seemed  to  give  them  the  dignity 
of  immemorial  age.  Were  not  these  at  last  the  real  primitive 
Christians,  unspoiled  by  later  corruptions,  still  speaking  the  very 

1  Narrative  of  a  Residence  in  Koordistan  and  on  the  Site  of  Ancient  Niniveh, 
London,  2  vols.,  1836. 

2  Nineveh  and  its  Remains,  London,  2  vols.,  1849. 

3  Op.  cit.  i.  275-279.  i  Op.  cit.  chap.  viii.  (i.  240-269). 


n6        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

language  used  by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  ?  All  kinds  of 
conjectures  were  wildly  made,  including  the  inevitable  one  that 
the  lost  Ten  Tribes  had  at  last  been  found.1  Another  circumstance 
fanned  the  enthusiasm  among  Protestants.  These  unspoiled 
primitive  Christians,  were  they  Papists  ?  By  no  means.  They 
had  no  pictures  in  their  churches  !  That  alone  would  be  enough 
to  show  the  purity  of  their  faith.  But  there  was  more  and 
better.  They  said  something  about  the  Blessed  Virgin  which 
Roman  Catholics  did  not  say  ;  they  had  heard  of  the  Pope  of 
Rome  and  could  not  abide  him  ;  they  had  Bibles,  and  were  quite 
willing  to  accept  more.  They  seem  in  those  days  to  have  been 
prepared  to  agree  with  enthusiasm  to  anything  their  Protestant 
visitors  said.  Monks  ?  Were  there  monks  in  the  Church  of 
England  ?  No.  Then  they  had  not  any  either.  The  Holy 
Eucharist  ?  What  did  their  honoured  visitors  believe  about  it 
themselves  ?  Nothing  very  definite,  but  certainly  not  what  the 
Pope  says.  Exactly  the  state  of  the  Nestorian  mind  on  the 
subject.  They,  too,  are  not  very  clear  about  it ;  but  they  are 
certain  the  Pope  is  wrong.  So  there  came  that  wonderful  myth 
of  Mar  Shim'un  and  his  people  as  the  "  Protestants  of  the 
East."  Poor  little  harried  sect !  These  well-dressed  European 
travellers  had  money,  power,  influence.  Pashas  and  Kaimakams 
trembled  before  them.  And  they  were  so  friendly  to  the 
poor  rayahs.  What  wonder  that  the  rayahs  were  anxious  to 
agree  ? 

A  further  reason  for  interest  in  the  Nestorians  was  their  need  of 
protection  by  some  civilized  State.  They  have  continually  been 
persecuted  by  their  neighbours,  notably  by  the  fanatical  Kurds 
who  share  their  mountains.  During  the  early  19th  century 
there  were  endless  raids  of  Kurds  on  Nestorian  villages,  accom- 
panied by  the  massacre,  rape,  burning  of  houses  and  churches, 
which  form  the  inner  history  of  the  Turkish  Empire  at  all  times. 
There  had  been  very  bad  cases  of  this  about  1830  ;  so  that  the 
conscience  of  Europe  was  aroused,  as  it  was  at  the  time  of 
the  Bulgarian,  Maronite  and  Armenian  atrocities.  Hitherto  the 
wilds  of   Kurdistan  had  been  practically  independent  of  the 

1  This  is  the  idea  of  Dr.  Asahel  Grant,  oi  the  American  Independent 
Board  of  Missions  :    The  Nestorians,  or  the  Lost  Tribes,  London,  1841. 


THE   PRESENT  NESTORIAN   CHURCH      117 

Government  and  a  free  fighting-ground  for  their  tribes.1  In  1834 
the  Government  made  a  spasmodic  effort  to  assert  itself  here,  and 
for  a  time  succeeded.  That  is  to  say,  it  sent  an  army  and  hanged 
everyone  they  met,  till  it  got  tired  of  it.  This  is  an  excellent 
proceeding  and  does  much  good  as  far  as  it  goes.  But  they  never 
hang  quite  everyone.  So  when  the  army  has  gone  back,  crowned 
with  victory,  the  old  state  of  things  begins  again  just  as  before. 
The  victorious  arms  of  Rashid  Pasha  in  1834  did  no  good  to  the 
harmless  Nestorians  ;  but  the  fuss  about  pacifying  Kurdistan 
again  called  the  attention  of  foreign  consuls  to  their  piteous  state. 
So  begins  an  invasion  of  Kurdistan  by  Protestant  missionaries  of 
various  sects,  who  build  schools  and  hospitals,  set  up  printing- 
presses  and  Bible-classes.  Let  it  be  said  at  once  that  these 
Protestants  have,  all  things  considered,  done  immense  good  to 
the  poor  little  forsaken  sect.  Apart  from  religious  questions,  they 
have  at  any  rate  taught  and  educated,  they  have  nursed  the  sick 
and  distributed  books  ;  in  short,  they  have  civilized  considerably. 
One  result  of  their  work  is  that  numbers  of  Nestorians  can  read 
and  write.  They  learn  Persian  and  Turkish,  some  English,  so 
that  not  a  few  sail  away  to  make  their  fortune  in  America. 

Mr.  Joseph  Wolff  from  England  came  about  1820  and  secured 
a  copy  of  the  Syriac  New  Testament.  He  brought  this  back ;  it 
was  printed  by  the  British  Bible  Association  in  1827  and  distri- 
buted in  great  numbers  around  Urmi.  But  among  organized 
missions  the  American  Presbyterians  were  first  in  the  field.2  In 
1830  their  Board  of  Missions  sent  two  men,  Messrs  Smith  and 
Davies,  who  brought  back  a  favourable  report.  Dr.  Julius  Perkins 
opened  a  mission  in  1834  ;  in  1835  Dr.  Asahel  Grant  joined  him. 
This  American  mission  has  large  buildings  at  Urmi ;  men  and 
women  work  here  among  the  natives.  They  have  doctors  and 
a  printing-press.  Meanwhile  no  less  interest  was  aroused  in 
England.     Mr.  Ainsworth  travelled  about  among  the  Nestorians 

1  It  may  be  noted  that  this  is  the  normal  state  of  the  Turkish  Empire. 
All  its  more  mountainous  and  wilder  parts  are  practically  independent  and 
at  the  mercy  of  the  strongest  tribe  which  dwells  there.  The  authority 
of  the  Government  obtains  in  the  towns  where  there  is  a  garrison,  and  as 
far  round  as  the  energy  of  the  local  Wali  cares  to  enforce  it.  If  he  neglects 
his  duty  (most  Walis  do),  there  may  be  anarchy  within  sight  of  the  gates. 

2  Except,  of  course,  the  Catholics,  who  had  been  there  for  centuries. 


n8        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

and  published  an  account  of  them  in  1842  ; x  he  had  received 
instructions  to  inquire  into  their  condition  from  the  Society  for 
Promoting  Christian  Knowledge.  In  1842  Mr.  George  Percy 
Badger,  Chaplain  of  the  East  India  Company,  was  sent  out  by 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  (Dr.  Howley)  and  the  Bishop  of 
London  (Dr.  Blomfield).  He  stayed  there  a  year,  visited  all  the 
sects  of  Mesopotamia,  and  made  such  good  use  of  his  time  as  is 
shown  in  the  delightful  book  he  published  on  his  return.2  He 
carried  friendly  and  complimentary  letters  to  Mar  Shim'un  from 
the  archbishop  and  bishop.  While  he  was  there  a  Kurdish 
insurrection  and  massacre  took  place  ;  the  Patriarch  found  refuge 
in  his  house.  He  also  made  clear  to  the  Nestorians  that  the 
Church  of  England  only  wanted  to  help  them,  not  to  convert  them. 
From  this  time  begins  the  very  friendly  feeling  of  Nestorians 
towards  Anglicans.  Badger  was  eager  that  an  Anglican  mission 
should  be  established  at  once  ;  but  nothing  was  done  for  some 
years.  In  1868  a  demand  for  missionaries  to  help  them  came  to 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  (Dr.  Tait)  from  Mar  Shim'un,  his 
clergy  and  notables.3  In  answer  to  this  Mr.  E.  L.  Cutts  was  sent 
out  in  1876  to  report,4  and  Mr.  Rudolph  Wahl,  an  Anglican 
clergyman,  departed  to  open  a  mission  in  188 1.  He  was  not  liked 
by  the  Nestorians,  and  was  recalled  in  1885.  In  1886  Mr.  W.  H. 
Browne  and  Canon  Maclean  went  under  the  guidance  of  Mr. 
Athelstan  Riley,  who  published  a  report  of  all  they  saw  and  did 
till  he  left  them.5  This  is  the  beginning  of  the  present  mission 
of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  to  the  "  Assyrian  Christians." 
They  had  their  headquarters  till  lately  at  Urmi- ;  now  they  have 
moved  to  Van.6     They  have  schools,  and  a  press  which  issues 

1  Ainsworth  :  Travels  and  Researches  in  Asia  Minor,  Mesopotamia, 
Chaldcea  and  Armenia,  London,  1842,  2  vols. 

2  G.  P.  Badger  :  The  Nestorians  and  their  Rituals,  ed.  by  J.  M.  W.  Neale, 
London,  1852,  2  vols. 

3  A.  Riley  :  Report  on  the  Foundation  of  the  Archbishop's  Mission  to  the 
Assyrian  Church  (London,  1886),  p.  24. 

4  E.  L.  Cutts  :   Christians  under  the  Crescent  in  Asia  (S.P.C.K.,  1877). 

5  Riley  :    op.  cit. 

6  In  1903  they  decided  to  abandon  Persia,  leaving  it  to  the  Russians,  and 
to  make  their  centre  at  Van  on  the  Turkish  side  (Heazell  and  Margoliouth  : 
Kurds  and  Christians,  London,  1913,  pp.  165-168).  Later  still  (1910)  they 
proposed  to  move  to  Amadia,  north  of  Mosul  (ib.  209-212). 


THE   PRESENT  NESTORIAN   CHURCH      119 

editions  of  Nestorian  service-books.  Other  bodies  have  smaller 
missions.  The  Danish  Lutherans  commissioned  a  converted 
Nestorian,  Nestorius  George  Malech,  to  work  as  a  missionary  for 
them  in  1893.1    There  is  a  small  Baptist  mission.2 

The  Russians,  too,  have  been  active  here.  At  one  time  it  seemed 
as  if  the  whole  Nestorian  body  would  turn  Orthodox.  In  1827 
a  number  of  Nestorian  families  fled  to  Russian  territory  at 
Erivan  and  joined  the  Orthodox  Church.3  Later,  at  repeated 
intervals,  Nestorians  have  asked  Russia  for  help  and  protection, 
and  have  declared  themselves  willing  to  be  Orthodox  in  return. 
In  1898  a  Nestorian  bishop,  with  four  other  clergymen,  went 
to  St.  Petersburg,  said  they  represented  their  nation,  and  ab- 
jured their  heresies.  They  came  back  with  Russian  missionaries 
and  made  a  propaganda  of  the  Orthodox  faith.  The  Russians 
built  a  mission-house,  set  up  a  press,  and  for  a  time  made  many 
converts.4  But  their  fair  promises  were  not  fulfilled.  The 
Tsar  sent  no  army  to  make  them  free  and  powerful ;  so  the 
converts  slipped  back  to  the  obedience  of  Mar  Shim'un.  The 
Russian  mission  among  them  only  vegetates  ;  though  occasionally 
one  hears  of  Russian  clergy  labouring  among  the  Nestorians  still. 
When  to  all  these  missions  we  add  the  long-established  and  zealous 
Catholic  clergy,  who  have  built  up  the  Uniate  Chaldaean  Church, 
we  realize  that  the  Nestorians,  once  themselves  so  great  missioners, 
now  know  what  it  is  to  be  the  objects  of  copious  missionizing. 

The  attitude  of  these  foreign  missions  towards  the  Nestorian 
sect  is  very  curious.  Of  course,  that  of  the  Catholics  and  Ortho- 
dox is  quite  simple.  They  frankly  make  converts  from  the 
heretical  body  ;  with,  however,  this  difference,  that  the  Catholics 
make  Uniates.  A  Nestorian  who  joins  them  does  not  give  up  his 
rite,  nor  any  legitimate  principle  or  custom  of  his  nation.  He 
abjures  his  heresy,  acknowledges  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  and  so 

1  G.  D.  Malech:  History  of  the  Syrian  Nation  (Minneapolis,  U.S.A.,  1910), 
PP-  378-390  2  lb.  p.  342. 

3  Avril  :    La  Chaldee  chretienne,  p.  22. 

4  The  Russians  claimed  20,000  converts  in  1900.  They  built  an  Orthodox 
Church  at  Urrai,  founded  forty  parishes  and  sixty  schools.  See  the  lichos 
d'Orient  (L'liglise  Nestorienne,  by  A.  Ratel),  vol.  vii.  (1904),  p.  349.  It 
seems  that  practically  all  Nestorians  in  Persia  turned  Orthodox,  though 
most  appear  to  have  gone  back  since  {Kurds  and  Christians,  pp.  140-141). 


120        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

returns  to  the  state  of  the  old  Persian  Church  before  it  fell  into 
heresy  and  schism.  But  the  Orthodox  have  no  Uniates.  In  join- 
ing them  a  Nestorian  must  leave  his  nation,  accept  the  Byzantine 
rite,  and  become  practically  a  Russian.  This  is  merely  the  invari- 
able difference  between  the  uniformity  always  demanded  by 
the  Orthodox  and  the  more  generous  toleration  of  the  Catholic 
Church. 

The  first  Protestant  missionaries  did  not  at  once  set  up  special 
sects.  They  were  on  very  friendly  terms  with  the  Nestorian 
hierarchy,  and  rejoiced  rather  that  they  had  discovered  these 
"  Protestants  of  the  East."  So  we  hear  of  their  going  to  church 
with  Nestorian  bishops.1  And  the  Nestorians,  as  we  said  (p.  116), 
at  first  encouraged  them  and  welcomed  them,  no  doubt  thinking 
them  the  "  Nestorians  of  the  West."  At  any  rate,  here  were  men 
who  abjured  the  Theot6kos  and  the  Pope,  who  cared  nothing  for 
Ephesus  (or,  for  the  matter  of  that,  for  any  other  council). 
These  first  Protestants  did  not  work  directly  against  the  Nestorian 
hierarchy.  Yet  indirectly  it  came  eventually  to  the  same  thing. 
They  worked  on  the  basis  of  the  usual  Protestant  contempt  for 
any  rites  or  Church  organization.  They  simply  ignored  all  that, 
saying  nothing  directly  against  it,  but  teaching  pure  Gospel,  faith 
alone,  and  so  on,  together  with  a  good  deal  of  general  education 
and  Western  ideas.  They  propagated,  besides  Bibles,2  such 
books  as  the  Pilgrim's  Progress  3  and  the  Saints'  Everlasting  Rest* 
No  doubt  they  foresaw  that  their  pupils  in  time  would  discover 
for  themselves  the  vanity  of  such  things  as  bishops,  rites  and 
sacraments,  would  quietly  drop  away  from  their  ancient  liturgy 
and  attend  only  the  missionaries'  prayer-meetings.  At  any  rate, 
that  is  what  happened.  Now  the  Presbyterians  have  evolved  an 
East  Syrian  Presbyterian  sect.  They  have  their  own  chapels  and 
services,  and  do,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  make  a  fairly  large  number  of 
converts  from  the  Nestorian  Church.5 

1  E.g.  Malech  :    op.  cit.  p.  325. 

2  Dr.  Perkins  and  Abraham  Malech  did  the  New  Testament  into  modern 
colloquial  Syriac. 

3  In  modern  Syriac,  Urmi,  1848.  4  lb.  1854. 

5  This  is  just  what  happened  in  the  cases  of  Protestant  missions  to  the 
Orthodox.  They  too  did  not  at  first  attack  the  official  Church  ;  but  did 
eventually  form  rival  religious  bodies  {Orth.  Eastern  Church,  p.  256).     Of 


THE  PRESENT  NESTORIAN   CHURCH      121 

But  there  appear  to  be  still  some  ambiguous  people  who  are,  it 
seems,  in  communion  with  Mar  Shim'un,  although  they  make  a 
purely  Protestant  propaganda.  The  most  puzzling  of  these  is  Mr. 
Nestorius  George  Malech,  who  has  translated  an  odd  book  about 
his  nation  by  his  father.1  This  Mr.  Malech,  if  we  may  trust  his 
own  account,  succeeds  in  running  with  the  hare  and  hunting  with 
the  hounds.  He  was  educated  at  the  Presbyterian  School  at 
Urmi,  and  shows  us  the  diploma  he  got  there.2  He  is  an  arch- 
deacon of  the  Nestorian  Church,  ordained  by  the  Metropolitan, 
Mar  Hnanyeshu'  (p.  132).  In  the  same  work  we  may  contemplate 
a  phototype  of  his  ordination  diploma.3  He  is  secretary  of  a 
society  for  "  looking  after  the  remnant  of  their  old  Church,"  to 
whom  Mar  Hnanyeshu'  sent  a  bishop  in  1900. 4  The  society  works 
with  the  bishop  and  pays  his  salary.  In  1900  Mr.  Malech  had 
charge  of  a  Nestorian  Church  of  St.  Mary  at  Urmi.5  The  society 
has  formed  itself  into  a  "  Patriarchal  Committee  "  which  sends 
money  to  the  Patriarch.  He  in  return  (July  15,  1908)  sends 
them  his  blessing  and  seems  to  be  quite  pleased  with  them.  Mr. 
Malech  is  one  of  the  seven  who  form  the  committee.6  At  the 
same  time  he  is  an  active  and  zealous  missionary  of  the  Norwegian 
Lutheran  Church  !  They  have  a  little  mission  at  Urmi ;  he  is 
their  agent  and  emissary  there.  His  book  (which  is  full  of  strange 
things)  shows  us  his  diploma  as  Lutheran  missionary  too,  with 
the  Norwegian  arms ;  a  tariff  stamp  "  for  the  amount  of  100 
Kroner,  but  not  exceeding  150  "  ;  his  undertaking  "  to  preach  the 
Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  in  accordance  with  the  doctrines  of  the 
evangelical  Lutheran  Church,"  and  "  to  remain  true  to  the  evan- 
gelical Lutheran  confession."  For  this  he  receives  70  kroner  a 
month.  This  document  is  dated  June  17,  1893,  at  Kristiania.7 
Mr.  Malech  does  not  appear  to  have  broken  with  the  Lutherans  in 
any  way.  The  last  I  heard  of  him  is  that  he  has  been  collecting 
money  from  Lutherans  in  Norway  and  America,  and  was  in 

course,  not  all  the  children  who  attend  the  Presbyterian  schools  among 
Nestorians  join  their  sect. 

1  George  David  Malech  :  History  of  the  Syrian  Nation,  etc.  (op.  cit.  p.  119 
n.  1). 

2  Op.  cit.  p.  383.  3  P.  385.  *  P.  353-  5  P.  357- 
6  Pp.  365,  366.  See  also  the  Patriarch's  letter  of  Aug.  17,  1908,  p.  367. 
'  Pp.  378-380. 


122        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

England  for  the  same  purpose.  He  has  also  a  warm  recommenda- 
tion from  the  Patriarchal  Committee.1  In  his  book  you  may  see 
many  strange  things,  including  portraits  of  his  mother-in-law  and 
son,2  of  his  wife  and  of  himself  in  six  varied  and  astonishing 
costumes,3  but  nothing  that  throws  any  light  on  the  burning 
question  what  exactly  he  is.  After  mature  examination  of  his 
collection  of  photographs,  documents  and  infantile  excursuses 
into  Church  history,  I  am  reluctantly  compelled  to  give  up  the 
Rev.  Nestorius  George  Malech.  But  the  possibility  of  so  am- 
biguous a  person  as  he  throws  a  lurid  light  on  the  state  of  the 
present  Nestorians. 

The  attitude  of  the  Anglican  mission  is  no  less  ambiguous,  but 
in  a  different  way.  Its  beginnings  were  of  the  usual  Protestant 
type.  It  proposed  to  educate  and  purify  the  Nestorians,  without 
directly  disturbing  their  organization.  Mr.  Badger  was  old- 
fashioned  enough  not  to  worry  much  about  the  Council  of  Ephesus. 
He  loathes  Popery,  of  course,  and  never  fails  to  lay  his  finger  on 
the  wickedness  of  Uniates.  Otherwise  he  seems  to  think  the 
Nestorians  very  much  like  the  Church  of  England,  Catholic  but 
not  Roman,  outwardly  divided  but  one  in  spirit.  His  second 
volume  examines  the  faith  of  the  Nestorians  in  a  way  that  must 
be  gall  and  wormwood  to  the  present  missionaries.  For  he  takes 
as  his  standard  of  universal  orthodoxy  the  Thirty-nine  Articles 
(of  all  things  !),  and  tests  the  Nestorians,  not  unfavourably  on  the 
whole,  by  their  agreement  with  these.  For  this  he  is  scolded  hard 
throughout  the  notes  by  Dr.  Neale,4  who,  although  for  some 
reason  he  does  not  seem  to  mind  Monophysites,5  is  very  angry 
with  the  Nestorians.  He  is,  naturally,  hardly  less  angry  with 
the  Articles.  So,  between  the  two,  poor  Mr.  Badger  suffers 
in  the  notes.6  But  since  Mr.  Riley  went  out  to  rejuvenate  the 
Anglican  mission  it  has  become  very  High  Church  indeed.     The 

1  P.  386.  2  P.  381.  3  P.  359. 

4  He  sent  his  book  to  be  edited  by  Dr.  Neale. 

5  E.g.  Badger  :   The  Nestorians  and  their  Rituals,  vol.  hi.,  note  1,  p.  403. 

6  For  instance  :  vol.  ii.  p.  425,  n.  25  :  "  Had  Mr.  Badger  been  more  prac- 
tically acquainted  with  the  Filioque  controversy,  perhaps  he  would  have 
written  this  paragraph  differently."  Note  31  (ib.)  :  "  It  is  rather  strange 
to  have  the  point  of  Nestorian  heresy  alleged  in  proof  of  the  Twenty-first 
Article."  Note  14  (ib.  p.  424)  :  "  The  flat  downright  heresy  of  this  passage 
is  well  worthy  notice." 


THE   PRESENT  NESTORIAN   CHURCH      123 

missionaries  now  have  vestments,  daily  celebrations,  and  so  on. 
This  makes  their  attitude  towards  the  Nestorians  all  the  more 
difficult  to  understand.  They  are  not  in  communion  with  them ; x 
but  short  of  that  they  go  every  possible  length.  They  make  no 
converts.  Their  little  paper2  is  never  tired  of  insisting  on  this. 
They  are  very  angry  with  the  Roman  missionaries  who  do  make 
converts  ;  they  talk  of  the  Uniates  as  schismatics  from  their 
lawful  Patriarch.  The  Anglicans  print  books  for  use  in  Nestorian 
churches,  they  educate  future  Nestorian  clergy,  and  teach  their 
pupils  the  duty  of  obeying  Mar  Shim'un.  They  are  always  at 
hand  to  counsel,  encourage  and  support  the  Patriarch.  Naturally 
this  attitude  is  pleasant  to  the  Nestorians  ;  the  Anglicans  are  on 
the  best  possible  terms  with  Mar  Shim'un  and  his  clergy.  Only — 
how  is  it  possible  thus  to  co-operate  with  a  heretical  sect  ?  If 
they  thought  the  Nestorians  one  more  branch  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  a  branch  long  neglected,  so  now  backward  and  in  need  of 
reform,  their  attitude  would  be  most  natural  and  right.  But 
how  can  they  think  this  ?  The  Nestorians  formally  reject  the 
fourth  general  council  and  honour  Nestorius  among  the  saints. 
If  that  does  not  make  a  body  heretical,  what  does  ?  Surely  even 
a  moderate  Anglican  accepts  at  least  the  first  four  general  councils. 
How  can  these  extreme  High  Churchmen  so  cavalierly  ignore  the 
fourth  ?  Would  they  thus  co-operate  with  Calvinists  or  Method- 
ists ?  And  is  it  not,  from  their  own  point  of  view,  the  duty  of 
each  Nestorian  to  leave  his  heretical  sect  and  join  one  of  the  true 
branches  of  the  Church,  even  by  becoming  a  Uniate  ? 

The  Anglican  answer  to  this  is  curious  and  typical.  They  say 
first  that  they  have  the  blessing  and  approval  of  the  Orthodox 
Patriarch  of  Antioch,3  to  whose  obedience  these  Nestorians  should 
return  ;  secondly,  that  they  labour  for  that  return.  They  do  not 
print  any  heretical  matter  in  the  books  they  supply,4  nor  do  they 

1  This  point  is  quite  clear.     See  Riley's  Report,  p.  12,  n.  1. 

2  A  ssyrian  Mission  Quarterly  Paper  (London,  Church  House  and  S.P.C.K.), 
since  1890.  The  Rev.  F.  N.  Heazell  and  Mrs.  Margoliouth  have  edited  a 
selection  of  extracts  from  this:  Kurds  and  Christians  (London,  1913).  See 
here,  p.  22  :  "  We  are  not,  as  they  feared,  only  another  and  better  sort  of 
proselytizers." 

3  See  the  correspondence  in  A.  Riley  :    op.  cit.  pp.  25-28. 

4  This  is  a  curious  point.  Apparently  the  Nestorians  who  know  this  fill 
in  the  omitted  passages  by  hand.     But  the  names  of  Nestorius,  Bar  Sauma, 


124        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

teach  heresy  in  their  schools.  Lastly,  they  are  much  inclined  to 
find  the  "  Assyrian  Church  "x  not  guilty  of  Nest  onanism.  Dr. 
W.  A.  Wigram,  of  this  mission,  distinguishes  himself  in  this  direc- 
tion, and  has  written  a  book  to  defend  the  "  Assyrians  "  from 
heresy.2  To  this  the  retort  is  obvious.  The  attitude  of  the 
Orthodox  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  if  in  his  heart  he  really  approves 
of  the  Anglican  mission,3  is  only  one  more  case  of  the  usual 
Orthodox  inconsistency.  His  religion  does  not  allow  him  to  look 
upon  Mar  Shim'un  as  anything  but  the  heretical  leader  of  a 
heretical  sect ;  his  co-religionists  of  Russia  are  at  this  very 
moment  attacking  the  problem  in  the  only  possible  way 
(according  to  Orthodox  principles),  by  making  converts  from 
Nestorian  to  Orthodoxy.  And  in  any  case  the  Patriarch  of 
Antioch  can  no  more  make  co-operation  with  a  heretical 
sect  lawful  than  can  anyone  else.  That  the  Anglicans  do  not 
print  heretical  matter  for  the  Nestorians  is,  so  far,  good ; 
it  would  be  still  worse  if  they  did.  But  this  is  not  enough  to 
justify  all  they  do.  Once  you  admit  that  the  Nestorian  Church 
(or  "  Assyrian  "  Church)  is  a  heretical  sect  (and  how  can  anyone 
who  acknowledges  the  Council  of  Ephesus  do  otherwise  ?),  it  is 
wrong  to  co-operate  with  it  in  sacris  at  all.  It  has  no  rights  as 
a  religious  body  ;  its  Patriarch  and  bishops  have  no  lawful  juris- 
diction, no  claim  to  anyone's  loyalty  or  obedience.  Each  member 
should  come  out  of  his  sect  into  the  Catholic  Church  4  at  once. 
To  encourage  them  to  stay  where  they  are,  in  the  hope  that  some 
day  the  whole  body  may  be  converted,  is  to  do  evil  that  good 
may  come  of  it— the  very  thing  of  which  they  so  often  and  so 
falsely  accuse  us.  Once  more,  what  would  these  High  Churchmen 
say  to  other  Anglicans  who  co-operated  thus  with  Congregation- 

and  other  heretics  are  printed  in  Brightman's  edition  of  the  Liturgy 
(Eastern  Liturgies,  278-279). 

1  I  have  commented  on  this  odd  name,  now  nearly  always  used  by  the 
Anglican  missionaries,  at  p.  7. 

2  The  Doctrinal  Position  of  the  Assyrian  Church  (S.P.C.K.,  1908). 

3  The  Anglican  recommendation  comes  from  Gerasimos  of  Antioch  (after- 
wards of  Jerusalem,  f  1897).  I  do  not  know  how  far  the  present  Arab 
Patriarch,  Gregory  VII,  approves  of  what  his  Greek  predecessor  did. 

4  "  Catholic  Church,"  of  course,  in  some  Anglican  sense.  We  do  not 
expect  Anglicans  to  act  on  our  theory  ;  but  one  may  surely  expect  them 
to  act  on  their  own. 


THE   PRESENT  NESTORIAN   CHURCH      125 

alists  or  Baptists.1  Perhaps  the  root  of  the  ambiguous  position 
of  the  Anglican  missionaries  is  their  (typically  Anglican)  neglect 
of  any  idea  of  jurisdiction.  Apart  from  the  question  of  Mar 
Shim'un's  faith,  they  should  consider  a  plain  question :  Has  he, 
or  has  he  not,  any  lawful  jurisdiction  from  God  ?  As  head  of  a 
schismatical  sect,  outside  the  Church  of  Christ  (on  their  own 
theory),  of  course  he  has  not.  Then  he  has  no  lawful  authority, 
no  one  is  bound  in  conscience  to  obey  him,  and  it  is  wrong  in  any 
way  to  assist  his  usurped  pretensions.  The  Orthodox,  of  course, 
would  say  this  plainly.  As  for  the  heresy  of  the  "  Assyrians,"  we 
have  already  discussed  that  (pp.  81-84).  A  Church  which  offici- 
ally repudiates  the  decrees  of  Ephesus,  which  glories  in  its  fidelity 
to  the  theology  of  Nestorius  and  counts  him  among  its  saints,  is 
heretical,  although,  no  doubt,  many  simple  souls  in  it  do  not 
understand  much  about  that  old  controversy.  Strangest  of  all, 
perhaps,  is  the  hostility  of  these  Anglican  missionaries  towards 
the  Uniate  Chaldees.2  That  they  do  not  like  our  making  converts 
from  Anglicanism  or  Orthodoxy  is  natural  enough.  But  they 
should  rejoice  in  the  Chaldees  as  much  as  in  Roman  Catholic 
converts  from  Lutheranism  or  Calvinism.  The  Chaldee  abjures 
Nestorius,  accepts  Ephesus,  and  (on  Anglican  principles)  leaves 
a  heretical  sect  to  enter  the  Catholic  Church,  in  its  largest  branch. 
Is  not  this  a  good  thing  for  him  ?  When  we  consider  further  that 
the  Chaldees  have  the  original  Patriarchal  line,  that  Mar  Shim'un 
represents  merely  an  (originally  Romanist)  schismatical  line  (p.  102) , 
the  Anglican  talk  about  Chaldees  as  schismatics  becomes  quite 
unintelligible.  Except,  of  course,  on  the  basis  (so  often  assumed 
by  Protestants  of  all  kinds)  that  you  had  better  be  anything,  even 
a  Nestorian  heretic,  than  be  in  union  with  the  Pope  of  Rome.3 

1  Their  answer  to  this  is  very  typical.  They  say  :  "  But  Protestant 
Dissenters  have  no  bishops  "  It  is  the  curious  Anglican  idea  that  to  have 
a  bishop  makes  a  sect  all  right,  or  nearly  all  right.  The  Arians  had  bishops. 
Would  they  think  it  lawful  to  co-operate  with  an  Arian  sect  ? 

2  They  are  nearly  as  cross  with  the  Orthodox  converts.  They  talk  about 
the  "  Russian  schism  "  in  Persia,  and  rejoice  to  find  "  signs  of  repentance  " 
among  those  who  turned  Orthodox.  They  contrast  with  the  "  schism  " 
the  "  old  Church,"  meaning  the  Nestorians  (Kurds  and  Christians,  p.  153). 
Do  they  really  think  that  sect  older  than  the  Orthodox  Church  ? 

3  This  curious  attitude  seems  characteristic  of  High  Anglicans.  Mr. 
Parry  was  sent  on  a  mission  to  the  Jacobites  in  1892  (p.  335).     He  knows 


126        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

But  one  would  not  leave  the  Anglican  mission  without  noticing 
its  other  side.  It  would  be  ungenerous  to  ignore  that,  in 
spite  of  the  confusion  of  their  position,  they  are  doing  enormous 
good.  These  missionaries  devote  their  lives  heroically  to  the 
difficult  task  of  educating  fellow-Christians  in  a  distant,  ungrate- 
ful land.  From  our  point  of  view,  we  should  say  that,  short  of 
becoming  Chaldees,  the  Nestorians  can  do  no  better  than  profit 
by  the  instruction,  accept  the  guidance,  follow  the  edifying 
example  of  their  generous  Anglican  guests.  We,  too,  may  wish 
the  Anglican  mission  God-speed  in  its  noble  work,  with  the 
additional  wish  that  their  instructions  may  open  Nestorian  eyes 
even  more  than  they  themselves  intend  ;  so  that  their  pupils  may 
at  last  seek  reunion,  not  with  the  Orthodox  Patriarch  of  Antioch, 
but  with  a  greater  Patriarch,  whose  authority  reaches  further 
and  is  more  firmly  based.  For  it  was  not  on  the  bishops  of  Ceru- 
larius's  schism  that  Christ  built  his  Church. 


2.  The  Nestorian  Hierarchy 

The  consideration  of  modern  missions  to  this  ancient  Church 
has  led  us  somewhat  from  our  immediate  subject.  We  have  now 
to  describe  the  Nestorians  as  they  are  at  present.  The  first  point 
seems  to  be  obviously  their  numbers  and  organization  under  their 
hierarchy. 

The  Nestorians  to-day  fall  into  two  main  classes  :  those  who  live 
in  Persia,  and  those  in  the  Turkish  Empire.  In  Persia  there  are 
groups  and  villages  of  Nestorians  scattered  about  the  Province 
of  Aserbaijan,1  mostly  in  the  plains  bordering  Lake  Urmi ;  there 
are  others  in  the  mountains  towards  the  Turkish  frontier.  In 
Turkey  they  are  found  mostly  in  the  Vilayet  of  Van.     These, 

that  "  intercommunion  with  a  Church  excommunicated  by  the  Holy 
Orthodox  Church  is  for  us  out  of  the  question,  until  the  faith  as  expounded 
at  Chalcedon  be  formally  acknowledged  by  her  "  (Six  Months  in  a  Syrian 
Monastery,  London,  1895,  p.  312).  Yet  he  abhors  the  Uniates,  says  they 
"cannot  be  considered  but  in  the  light  of  a  schismatic  body  "  (ib.  130),  and 
always  calls  the  Jacobites  the  "  old  Church  "  (e.g.  p.  208).  One  wonders 
whether,  if  a  Methodist  joined  the  Church  of  England,  Mr.  Parry  would 
consider  that  he  left  the  old  Church  to  join  a  schismatic  body. 

1  Adarbaigan.  Most  of  these  appear  to  have  gone  over  lately  to  the 
Russian  Church  (p.  119).     I  do  not  know  how  many  have  yet  come  back. 


THE   PRESENT  NESTORIAN   CHURCH      127 

again,  fall  into  two  classes.     Those  in  the  mountains  are  called 
'ashirah  (tribe).1     They  consist  of  families,  said  to  be  courageous 


FIG.   2. KUDSHANIS. 

(From  a  photograph  by  the  Rev.  F.  N.  Heazell.) 

and  warlike,  in  the  mountain  fastnesses,  practically  independent 
of  the  Turkish  Government — for  the  usual  reason,  because  the 
Government  cannot  get  at  them.  They  flourish  and  fight  Kurds 
in  the  wild  country  where  the  great  Zab  takes  its  rise  between  the 
lakes  Van  and  Urmi  (Tiari  and  Thuma),  pay  taxes  very  irregu- 
larly, and  really  obey  only  Mar  Shim'un.  The  other  group  is 
that  of  the  ordinary  raiyyah  in  the  open  country,  more  accessible 
to  the  Government,  and  so  very  much  more  miserable  in  every 
way.  A  triangle  between  Lake  Van,  Lake  Urmi  and  almost 
down  to  Mosul  encloses  the  home  of  the  present  Nestorians.  Its 
centre  is  the  village  Kudshanis,  where  dwells  the  Patriarch.  South 
of  this  triangle  we  come  to  the  plains  around  Mosul  and  Bagdad, 
now  inhabited  chiefly  by  the  Uniate  Chaldees.  The  distinction 
of  religion  is  not,  of  course,  entirely  geographical.  There  are  a 
few  Nestorians  at  Mosul,  in  Persian  towns,  Armenia,  perhaps  at 
Urfah  and  Diyarbakr  ;  but  these  are,  so  to  say,  strangers  in  a 
foreign  land,  just  as  there  are  some  in  America. 

1  From  the  root  'aSar  (Arabic  :    "  ten  "),  a  group  of  ten  families. 


128        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

The  total  number  of  the  Nestorians  is  estimated  variously. 
Statistics  in  both  Turkey  and  Persia  are  generally  mere  guesses. 
In  any  case,  it  is  now  only  a  small  remnant.  The  largest  number 
I  find  is  given  by  Silbernagl,  iso^oo,1  the  smallest  70,ooo.2 
Cuinet,  who  is  generally  sound,  gives  ioo,ooo.3  What  do  these 
people  call  themselves  ?  It  is  generally  difficult  to  find  the 
technical  name  used  by  the  smaller  Eastern  Churches  for  them- 
selves, because  so  often  they  have  none,  calling  themselves  simply 
"  Christians,"  or  some  such  indefinite  title.  Most  Nestorians  if 
asked  what  they  are  would  say  simply  Mshihdye  (Christian),  or 
Surydne  (Syrian) ,  both  of  which  names  they  also  give  to  the  Jacob- 
ites. Often  they  distinguish  themselves  from  us  and  the  Ortho- 
dox as  "  Christians  of  the  East."  But  they  have  not  the  smallest 
objection  to  the  name  "  Nestorian."  Mar  'Ebedyeshu',  Metro- 
politan of  Nisibis,  in  1298  drew  up  a  profession  of  faith,4  which 
he  calls  "The  Orthodox  Creed  of  the  Nestorians."5  He  dates 
it  at  the  end  as  written  in  September  "  in  the  year  of  Alexander, 
1609,  in  the  blessed  city  of  Hlat,  in  the  church  of  the  blessed 
Nestorians."6  He  makes  a  list  of  Church  books  (mentioning  the 
"false"  Synod  of  Ephesus),7  written  (he  says)  by  "Nestorian 
divines."8  Nor  has  their  custom  changed  since  his  time.  Mr. 
Badger  heard  these  people  call  themselves  Surydne,  Nesturyane, 
Kristyane,  Mshihdye  ;  but  never  Haldaye  (Chaldee),  which  is  the 
recognized  name  for  the  Uniates.  Lately  a  student  at  the  Angli- 
can mission-school  shocked  his  teachers  by  writing  in  an  essay  on 
his  people  the  statement :  "  The  Syrians  have  taken  their  religion 
from  Mar  Nestoris."9  So  it  seems  that  if  one  were  to  ask  one  of 
these  people  whether  he  be  a  Nestorian,  he  would  answer  quite 
simply  that  he  is.  No  doubt  the  more  educated  would  say  that 
their  religion  is  that  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  as  taught  and 

1  Verfassung,  u.s.w.,  p.  268. 

2  Herzog  and  Hauck  :  Prot.  Realenz.  (article  by  Petermann  and  Kessler), 
vol.  xiii.  p.  733. 

3  Namely,  10,000  in  Persia,  40,000  Turkish  "rayahs,"  50,000  'ashirah 
Nestorians  (La  Turquie  d'Asie,  Paris,  1892,  vol.  ii.  p.  650).  The  Anglican 
mission  agrees  with  this  (Kurds  and  Christians,  p.  12). 

4  In  Badger,  op.  cit.  ii.  pp.  49-51.  5  lb.  p.  49. 

6  Op.  cit.  i.  178.  7  ii.  378.  8  j#  I78. 

9  Maclean  and  Browne  :    The  Catholicos  of  the  East,  p.  150. 


THE   PRESENT  NESTORIAN   CHURCH      129 

defended  by  the  blessed  Nestorius — which  is,  of  course,  what  every 
heretic  says  about  the  founder  of  his  sect.1 

Over  these  people  reigns  the  Katholikos  and  Patriarch,  Mar 
Shim'un.  He  is  their  ecclesiastical  chief  and  practically  their 
civil  chief  too  ;  that  is  to  say,  he  is  the  only  person  they  obey 
willingly  and  loyally  in  all  things.  The  Turkish  governors  (Wali 
and  Ka'immakam) ,  of  course,  claim  political  authority  over  the 
Nestorians,  as  over  all  rayahs,  and  use  it  when  they  can  ;  but 
generally  they  have  to  count  with  Mar  Shim'un.  The  Nestorian 
goes  to  his  Patriarch  to  have  his  disputes  settled.  The  Patriarch 
rules  thus  by  virtue  of  public  opinion  ;  his  excommunication 
entails  a  general  boycott  and  is  much  dreaded.2  Mar  Shim'un  is, 
then,  the  recognized  ra'is  (civil  head)  of  his  "nation";3  the 
Turkish  Government  pays  him  an  annual  subsidy ;  4  it  is  not  true 
that  he  does  not  receive  a  berat  from  the  Turkish  Government,5 
though  in  troubled  times  no  doubt  it  arrived  irregularly.  Under 
him  are  the  chiefs  of  tribes,6  who  have  civil  authority  each  over 
his  own  group. 

Mar  Shim'un,  then,  claims  to  represent  the  old  line  of  Persian 
Katholikoi  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon  from  Mari  and  Papa  Bar  Aggai 
(p.  102).  His  claim  is  not  true.  Really  he  represents  the  line 
of  Patriarchs  founded  by  Sulaka,  originally  Uniate.  The  old  line 
is  that  of  the  present  Uniate  Patriarch.  Logically,  then,  it 
should  be  said  that  the  old  Nestorian  Persian  Church  (repre- 
sented by  her  hierarchy)  is  now  Uniate,  that  Mar  Shim'un 
is  head  of  a  schism  from  that  Church  which  has  gone  back  to 
Nestorianism.  This  is  what  anyone  would  admit,  were  no  con- 
troversial issue  at  stake.  But  since  the  roles  of  the  lines  of  Sulaka 
and  of  Bar  Mama  have  now  become  so  curiously  reversed,  non- 
Catholics  ignore  their  origin,  treat  Mar  Shim'un  as  head  of  the  old 

1  So  the  Danish  Lutherans  in  their  commission  to  N.  G.  Malech  tell  him 
to  "  preach  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  in  accordance  with  the  doctrines  of 
the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  "  (p.  121). 

2  Badger  :   op.  cit.  i.  p.  259. 

3  The  millah  (millet)  of  the  Nestorians. 

4  Maclean  and  Browne  :   op.  cit.  188. 

5  Bard' ah,  the  diploma  recognizing  the  Patriarch,  and  giving  him  author- 
ity from  the  State.  See  Silbernagl :  Verfassung  u.  gegenw.  Bestand.  p.  249. 
I  have  seen  a  photograph  of  the  present  Patriarch's  berat. 

6  Called  in  Syriac  malka,  Arabic  malik. 

9 


130        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Persian  (or  "  Assyrian  ")   Church,  and  the  real  old  Church  as 
schismatic,  because  it  is  not  in  communion  with  him. 

The  Nestorian  Patriarchate  has  again  fallen  into  the  great  abuse 
of  this  sect ;  it  is  hereditary.  There  is  a  "  Patriarchal  family," 
as  there  are  families  of  bishops — the  "  holders  of  the  throne."1 
As  bishops  must  be  celibate,  this  means  that  they  keep  several 
nephews 2  in  their  house,  from  whom  their  successor  will  be  chosen. 
The  bishop  may  never  eat  flesh-meat,  nor  have  eaten  meat ;  nor 
may  his  mother  have  done  so  during  her  time  of  pregnancy. 
Clearly,  then,  the  choice  of  a  bishop  may  only  fall  on  one  of  these 
Nazarites,  whose  lives  (and  for  a  time  those  of  their  mothers)  have 
been  arranged  to  prepare  for  election.3  The  Nazarites  who  are 
not  elected  then  often  begin  eating  flesh-meat,  marry,  and  so  are 
disqualified  for  the  episcopate.  When  the  Patriarch  dies,  the 
notables  elect  one  of  the  Patriarchal  family,  often  a  very  young 
man,  or  even  a  child,  to  succeed  him.4  He  is  then  consecrated  and 
enthroned  by  the  Metropolitan  (p.  132).  Now  that  he  lives  at 
Kudshanis,  this  takes  place  in  the  Patriarchal  Church  of  Mar 
Shalita.5  As  in  the  case  of  many  Eastern  Churches,  the  form  of 
making  a  Patriarch  is,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  an  ordination, 
though  the  candidate  is  first  ordained  bishop.  In  their  descrip- 
tions of  the  hierarchy  they  count  the  Patriarch  distinct  from  a 
bishop,  apparently  in  the  same  sense  as  a  bishop  is  distinct  from 
a  priest  (p.  134).  Now  the  Patriarch-Katholikos  always  takes 
the  name  Simon  and  becomes  Mar  Shim'un.  He  is  the  supreme 
authority  over  all  Nestorians.  In  theory  he  can  only  be  judged 
by  his  "  brother  Patriarchs  "  ;  but  as  he  now  has  none  who 
recognize  him,6  this  means  that  no  one  can  judge  him.     But  he 

1  Arab.:  ndtir  cdkursi;  Syr.:  ndturd  kursya  (modern  =  ndtir  kursi), 
*'  guardian  of  the  throne." 

2  Called  also  Nazarites  (nsiri). 

3  However,  this  principle  is  not  observed  strictly.  It  seems  that,  in 
practice,  abstinence  for  some  time  before  ordination  is  considered  sufficient 
(Dr.  Wigram). 

4  Sometimes  the  Patriarch  chooses  his  own  successor.  The  late  Patriarch 
chose  the  present  one  a  fortnight  before  his  own  death. 

6  St.  Artemius,  martyr  under  Julian  in  361  ;  Nilles  :  Kalendarium 
manuale,  i.  304.     A  plan  of  this  church  is  given  at  p.  146. 

The  Nestorian  theory  is  that  there  are  five  Patriarchates  :'  Rome, 
Alexandria,  Ephesus  (since  moved  to  Constantinople),  Antioch,  Seleucia- 
Ctesiphon — not   Jerusalem  (Maclean   and   Browne  :     op.   cit.    189).     How 


THE   PRESENT  NESTORIAN   CHURCH      131 

must  rule  the  Church  according  to  the  canons  (see  p.  135).  If 
he  does  not  do  so,  presumably  this  would  be  considered  a  just 
reason  for  withstanding  his  orders,  or  perhaps  even  for  deposing 
him.1  Mar  Shim'un  has  a  large  diocese  of  his  own.2  He  has  the 
right  to  ordain,  translate,  and  depose  all  other  Nestorian  bishops. 
If  the  Metropolitan  (p.  132)  ordains  a  bishop,  a  further  ceremony, 
very  like  a  second  ordination,  must  be  performed  by  the  Patriarch. 
The  Patriarch  may  further  ordain  a  priest  for  any  diocese  ;  he 
alone  consecrates  the  holy  chrism  (every  seven  years) ,  and  blesses 
the  antimensia.3  He  can  make  canon  and  liturgical  laws,  he 
censures  books,  and  is  named  in  all  public  prayers.  His  income 
consists  of  a  tax  of  about  threepence,  levied  every  three  years  from 
all  men  who  obey  him,  the  first-fruits  (in  kind)  of  his  own  diocese 
and  a  tithe  of  the  first-fruits  of  other  bishops,  fines  often  imposed 
instead  of  excommunication,  free  gifts  (sometimes  of  a  consider- 
able amount)  made  by  the  notables,4  and  the  Turkish  subsidy.5 
His  title  is  :  "  The  reverend  and  honoured  father  of  fathers  and 
great  shepherd,  Mar  Shim'un,  Patriarch  and  Katholikos  of  the 
East."6  He  uses  his  own  Christian  name  before  "  Shim'un  "  at 
the  head  of  his  letters.  His  seal  bears  in  the  middle  the  inscrip- 
tion :  "  The  lowly  Simon  (Shim'un),  Patriarch  of  the  East,"  and 
around :  "  Mar  Shim'un,  who  sits  on  the  throne  of  the  Apostle 
Addai."7  The  last  Patriarch,  Ruwil  (for  Rubil  =  Ruben) ,  died  on 
March  29,  1903.  A  fortnight  before  (March  15)  he  had  appointed 
his  nephew  Benjamin  (Benyamin)  to  succeed  him,  and  had  or- 
dained him  bishop.  On  April  12,  the  metropolitan,  Mar  Hnan- 
yeshu'  ordained  Benjamin  Patriarch.  There  had  been  a  good  deal 
of  dispute  and  intrigue  about  the  succession.     A  cousin,  Mar 

impossible  this  is  will  be  seen  from  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  chap,  i.,  and  from 
the  account  of  the  original  position  of  their  Katholikos.  On  no  historical 
basis  is  he  a  Patriarch  at  all. 

1  Possibly  by  a  synod  of  all  the  bishops.  But  such  a  measure  would  be 
a  revolution,  for  which  it  is  always  impossible  to  draw  up  rules.  It  would 
almost  certainly  cause  a  schism. 

2  See  at  Kudshanis,  including  most  of  the  "  tribal  "  Nestorians  ;  Maclean 
and  Browne,  p.  195. 

3  The  cloth  with  relics  used  by  Nestorians  as  a  portable  altar,  as  it  is  by 
the  Orthodox  and  all  Eastern  Churches  (Orth.  Eastern  Church,  p.  409). 

4  Silbernagl  :   ib.  262.         5  He  receives  ^100  a  year  from  the  Anglicans. 

6  Maclean  and  Browne  :   op.  cit.  185  ;   see  also  the  longer  title,  ib. 

7  Silbernagl :  p.  261. 


i32   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Abraham,  had  been  appointed  successor  formerly,  and  he  had 
many  adherents,  chiefly  among  the  Nestorians  of  the  plains.  It 
was  the  'Ashlrah  people  who  made  the  old  Patriarch  change  and 
appoint  Benjamin.1  Mar  Benyamm  Shim'un  is  now  only  twenty- 
seven  years  old.     He  became  Patriarch  at  the  age  of  seventeen. 

There  is  now  only  one  Metropolitan  (called  Matran),  who  ranks 
as  second  after  the  Patriarch.  He  is  always  Mar  Hnanyeshu'.2 
He  has  a  diocese  partly  in  Turkey  and  partly  in  Persia.3  He  has 
the  right  of  ordaining  the  Patriarch,  and  assists  him  in  his  govern- 
ment. The  present  Metropolitan  (Isaac  by  baptism),  a  very  old 
man,  is  greatly  respected  and  has  much  influence.  He  resides  at 
Neri,  on  the  Turkish  side  of  the  frontier.  Besides  the  Patriarch 
and  the  Metropolitan,  the  Nestorians  have  seven  bishops  in 
Turkey  and  three  in  Persia,  of  whom  several  have  only  nominal 
dioceses.  Moreover,  the  limits  of  the  dioceses  often  change  and 
appear  to  be  very  uncertain.4  The  dioceses  in  the  plain  of  Urmi 
follow  the  course  of  the  rivers,  so  that  to  belong  to  a  certain  river 
means  to  belong  to  the  corresponding  diocese.  The  succession  of 
bishops  is  arranged  usually  like  that  of  the  Patriarch.  There  are 
"  holders  of  the  throne"  (nephews  or  cousins  of  the  bishop)  brought 
up  specially,  abstaining  always  from  flesh-meat,  one  of  whom  is 
chosen  by  the  leading  clergy  and  the  notables  of  the  diocese  to 
succeed,  and  is  then  presented  to  Mar  Shim'un  for  ordination. 
But  this  arrangement,  involving  a  kind  of  heredity  in  certain  epis- 
copal families,  is  not  according  to  the  Nestorian  canon  law.  Old 
custom  demanded  that  bishops  should  be  monks,  and  laws  forbade 
a  bishop  to  nominate  his  successor.  But  there  are  now  practically 
no  monks.  The  hereditary  principle  grew  up  as  an  abuse  about 
three  or  four  centuries  ago.5  It  still  sometimes  happens  that,  when 
there  is  no  "  holder  of  the  throne  "  who  can  be  ordained,  a  priest, 
no  relation  of  the  last  bishop,  is  chosen.     One  of  the  many  bad 

1  See  Echos  d' Orient,  vii.  (1904),  pp.  290-292.  Mar  Abraham  became  a 
Uniate. 

2  "  Mercy  of  Jesus."         3  Shamsdin  in  Turkey  and  two  plains  in  Persia. 

4  Two  lists  of  bishops  and  sees  (not  agreeing)  will  be  found  in  Silbernagl : 
Verfassung  u.  gegenw.  Bestand.  p.  267,  and  in  Maclean  and  Browne  :  The 
Catholicos  of  the  East,  195-197.  It  appears  that  the  custom  of  a  special 
name  for  each  line  of  bishops  (like  Simon  for  the  Patriarchate)  is  common 
to  most  sees. 

*  Among  the  Uniate  Chaldees  it  is  severely  discouraged  (see  p.  101). 


THE   PRESENT  NESTORIAN  CHURCH      133 


FIG.    3. THE    NESTORIAN    KATHOLIKOS,    MAR    BENYAM1N    SHIM'UN. 

(From  a  photograph  by  the  Rev.  F.  N.  Heazell.) 


134        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

results  of  the  common  practice  is  that  boys,  twelve  years  old  or  less, 
are  chosen  as  bishops.1  All  Nestorian  bishops  (Efiskufa)  must 
now  be  celibate.2  But  priests  and  all  the  lower  clergy  (except, 
of  course,  monks)  may  not  only  be  married,  but  may  marry  several 
wives  in  succession,  and  may  do  so  after  ordination.  This  prin- 
ciple, held  by  the  Nestorians  alone  among  Eastern  Churches,  is  a 
remnant  of  the  old  bad  days  when,  under  Mazdaean  influence, 
they  had  discarded  celibacy  altogether. 

The  parish  priest  (kahna,  kashlsha,  kasha)  is  chosen  by  the 
community,  and  must  be  accepted  and  ordained  by  the  bishop. 
Under  the  bishop  the  Archpriest  (rab  kumre)  counts  as  first  in 
the  diocese.  In  the  bishop's  absence  he  replaces  him  at  certain 
functions.  Chorepiscopi  (called  sa'aure,  "  visitors ")  are  not 
ordained  bishop.  They  are  priests  having  jurisdiction  over  a 
group  of  country  parishes,  whose  clergy  they  assemble  twice  a 
year  for  examination  and  direction.  The  Archpriest  is  merely 
the  Chorepiscopus  of  the  city.  The  Archdeacon  (arkidyakuna) 
looks  after  the  bishop's  finances,  and  acts  as  a  kind  of  Vicar- 
General  for  the  diocese.  Under  the  priest  come  the  deacon 
(shamasha,  dyakna),  the  subdeacon  (hufadyakna),  and  the  reader 
(karuya,  amura).  The  shahara.  ("awakener")  is  the  clerk  (often  a 
reader  or  an  old  priest)  who  presides  at  the  night-office,  and  some- 
times at  funerals. 

The  Nestorians  says  that  their  hierarchy  corresponds  to  the 
nine  choirs  of  angels,  thus  :  i,  Patriarch  (= Cherub) ;  2,  Metro- 
politan (= Seraph) ;  3,  Bishop  (= Throne) ;  4,  Archpriest  (  — Domi- 
nion) ;  5,  Chorepiscopus  (= Virtue)  ;  6,  Priest  (  —  Power)  ;  7, 
Deacon  (  =  Principality) ;  8,  Subdeacon  (= Archangel)  ;  9,  Reader 
(= Angel).3  A  curious  point  about  these  orders  of  the  hierarchy 
is  that  each  is  attained  by  a  special  ordination  form,  with  laying- 
on  of  hands.  A  priest  who  becomes  a  chorepiscopus,  a  deacon 
who  becomes  an  archdeacon,  is  ordained,  just  as  a  priest  who 
becomes  a  bishop.    We  should,  of  course,  say  that  the  making  of 

1  The  Natir  Kursi  of  Mar  Hnanyeshu'  is  a  boy  of  seventeen,  named 
Joseph  (Kurds  and  Christians,  p.  188). 

2  For  the  election,  ordination,  and  rights  of  bishops  see  Silbernagl  :  op. 
cit,  262-266. 

3  See  the  Jewel  or  Pearl  (margantihd)  of  'Ebedyeshu'  ot  Nisibis  (1298), 
translated  by  Badger  ■    The  Nestorians  and  their  Rituals,  ii.  p.  403. 


THE   PRESENT  NESTORIAN   CHURCH      135 

a  deacon,  a  priest,  a  bishop  is  the  Sacrament  of  Holy  Orders  ; 
that  the  other  ceremonies  are  only  sacrament als,  blessings  at  the 
appointment,  like  our  minor  orders.  But  this  distinction  does 
not  appear  to  be  very  clear  to  Nestorians.  A  ceremony  sus- 
piciously like  reordination,  for  instance,  is  appointed  for  a  bishop 
who  becomes  Patriarch. 

At  one  time  monasticism  flourished  among  the  Nestorians  (p. 
no) ;  ruins  of  their  monasteries  may  be  seen  all  over  the  plain  of 
Mosul.  None  are  now  inhabited.  The  monastic  life  fell  to  pieces 
since  the  14th  century,  especially  because  of  the  characteristic  Nes- 
torian  prejudice  against  celibacy.  Since  the  14th  century  they 
admit  a  very  easy  dispensation  from  vows  of  celibacy,  by  which  a 
monk  can  marry  and  return  to  the  world.1  Nor  have  they  any 
longer  convents  of  nuns.  But  a  few  hermits  exist  in  Kurdistan, who 
live  alone,  under  obedience  to  the  nearest  parish  priest.  There  are 
also  a  few  pious  unmarried  women,  living  with  their  relations,  and 
occupied  with  good  works.  These  take  a  vow  of  celibacy  (always 
with  the  possibility  of  easy  dispensation).  The  only  monastery 
of  this  rite  is  the  Uniate  one  of  Rabban  Hurmizd.2 

All  these  persons  (and  the  laity  too)  are  governed  in  Church 
matters  by  canon  law.  Nestorian  canon  law  is  taken  from 
three  main  sources.  First  are  the  "  Western  Synods,"  namely, 
such  synods  held  in  the  empire  before  their  schism  as  they 
recognize.  Among  these  they  count  a  number  held  against  the 
Arians — Neo-Caesarea  in  314,  Nicsea  in  325,  Antioch  in  encceniis 
(341),  Ancyra  in  358,  and  others.  Marutha  of  Maiferkat  made  a 
collection  of  these  in  410.  Later  the  disciplinary  canons  of  Chal- 
cedon  (451)  were  added  to  them.  Some  of  the  acts  of  Western 
Synods  are  generally  added  to  later  Nestorian  collections.  The 
second  main  source  is  the  collection  of  synods  held  by  Katholikoi 
of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon  down  to  the  8th  century.  These  are  the 
"  Eastern  Synods."  An  unknown  Nestorian  collected  these 
between  the  years  775  and  790.  Oskar  Braun  published  the  col- 
lection in  1900  in  a  German  translation.3      Later  J.  B.  Chabot 

1  Canon  of  'Ebedyeshu',  II.  n,  quoted  by  Silbernagl :  Verfassung,  u.s.w., 
p.  272,  n.  6. 

2  For  Nestorian  monks  and  nuns  see  Silbernagl :  op.  cit.  271-273. 

3  O.  Braun  :  Das  Buck  der  Synhados,  Stuttgart  and  Vienna.  1900. 


136   THE  LESSER   EASTERN  CHURCHES 

published  a  more  satisfactory  edition  in  Syriac  with  a  French 
version.1  The  book  begins  with  the  Synod  of  Mar  Isaac  in  410, 
and  ends  with  a  Synod  of  Hnanyeshu'  II  in  775.  An  appendix 
adds  the  Synod  of  Timothy  I  in  790.  This  book  of  the  Sun- 
hadaus  is  the  chief  source  of  their  canon  law.  The  third  source 
consists  of  all  canons  and  laws  made  by  Patriarchs  and  synods 
since  the  8th  century.  These  have  not  been  codified  authenti- 
cally. In  the  13th  century,  Barhebraeus  made  an  important 
collection  of  Jacobite  canon  law.2  Fired  by  this  example, 
'Ebedyeshu'  Bar  Barlka,3  Metropolitan  of  Nisibis  (f  13 18), 
undertook  the  same  office  for  the  Nestorians.  So  he  compiled 
a  text-book  from  the  three  sources  described  above.  This  is 
the  Nomocanon  of  Ebedjesus,  the  completest  collection  of 
Nestorian  canon  law.4  He  quotes  his  sources,  but  is  not  always 
reliable,  inasmuch  as  he  sometimes  tampers  with  the  texts.5 

3.  The  Faith  of  the  Nestorians 

The  modern  Nestorians  have  kept  the  faith  of  their  fathers 
(since  they  first  accepted  their  heresy)  amid  Moslems,  Kurds, 
Yazidis  loyally.  For  this  they  deserve  all  honour.  We  should 
wonder  at  it  the  more,  were  it  not  the  common  phenomenon 
among  all  these  smaller  Eastern  Churches.  Their  conservatism, 
their  fidelity  to  their  traditions  in  all  things,  is  their  most  remark- 
able characteristic. 

Of  the  Nestorian  faith,  then,  not  much  need  be  said.  We  have 
little  against  it,  save  the  one  point  of  their  heresy  as  to  our  Lord's 

1  J.  B.  Chabot  :  Synodicon  oriental  e  (Notices  et  Extraits  des  MSS.  de  la 
Bibl.  Nat.  xxxvii.),  Paris,  1902.  It  is  printed  from  a  MS.  written  at  the 
monastery  of  Raban  Hurmlzd  for  the  Uniate  Patriarch  Mar  'Ebedyeshu' 
Hayath,  and  given  by  him  to  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  where  it  is 
No.  332. 

2  See  p.  330. 

3  Commonly  called  Ebedjesus  ;  an  analysis  of  his  Nomocan  is  given  by 
Assemani  :   Bibl.  Orient,  hi.  pt.  i.  pp.  332-351. 

4  The  Nomocanon  or  Liber  Directionum  is  published  by  Angelo  Mai  in  his 
Scriptorum  veterum  nova  collectio,  torn,  x.,  in  a  Latin  version  made  by 
Aloysius  Assemani.  Assemani  gives  an  epitome  of  it  in  the  Bibliotheca 
Orientalis,  iii.  pars.  i.  pp.  332-351. 

6  For  other  collections  of  Nestorian  canon  law  see  Duval :  Litterature 
syriaaue,  T71-183  ;  Chabot :  Synodicon  orientate,  14-15. 


THE   PRESENT  NESTORIAN   CHURCH      137 

person.  They  use  in  their  liturgy  the  Creed  of  Nicaea-Constanti- 
nople,  with  verbal  changes  of  no  importance,1  and  understand  it 
all  (save  the  one  point  how  the  Son  of  God  became  man)  as  we  do. 
This  one  point  has  been  explained  at  some  length  already  (pp.  82- 
86).  They  believe  that'there  are  in  Christ  two  natures  (kydne), 
two  hypostases  (knume)  and  one  prosopon  (parsufd)  of  union. 
They  reject  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  declare  that  they  stand  for 
the  teaching  of  Nestorius,  count  him  among  their  saints  (p.  84), 
and  always  refuse  to  our  Lady  her  title  Theot6kos.  They  anathe- 
matize Cyril  of  Alexandria  and  those  who  agree  with  him.  There- 
in lies  their  heresy.2  Further,  they  seem  to  be  involved  in  some- 
thing like  the  Iconoclast  heresy.  They  have  no  holy  pictures  in 
their  churches  or  houses,  and  they  abhor  the  idea  of  a  holy 
picture.3  This  seems  to  be  a  fairly  modern  development,  perhaps 
under  Moslem  influence.  There  are  in  Uniate  Churches  around 
Mosul  paintings  of  saints  and  angels,  made  by  native  artists  long 
before  the  union.4  But  all  Nestorians  have  a  profound  veneration 
for  the  Cross.  They  put  crosses  (not  crucifixes)  in  their  churches, 
on  their  monuments  and  documents,  and  treat  these  crosses  with 
enormous  respect.5  They  admit  the  Deuterocanonical  books  of 
Scripture,6  grace,  freewill,  the  value  of  good  works.7  They  pray 
much  for  the  dead  and  give  alms  for  them  ;    though  they  are 

1  Brightman  :  Eastern  Liturgies,  270-271  ;  Wigram  :  The  Assyrian 
Church,  290-293. 

2  Their  service  on  the  feast  of  the  "  Greek  Doctors  "  (the  fifth  Friday- 
after  Epiphany)  contains  these  anathemas  :  "  Woe  and  woe  again  to  all 
who  say  that  God  died  .  .  .  who  say  that  Mary  is  the  mother  of  God  .  .  . 
who  do  not  confess  in  Christ  two  natures,  two  persons  (hypostases),  and 
one  parsopa  of  filiation.  Woe  and  woe  again  to  the  wicked  Cyril  and 
Severus  "  (Badger  :  op.  cit.  ii.  80).  Plainly  these  people  cannot  be  acquitted 
of  heresy.  Mar  Hnanyeshu'  is  now  prepared  to  drop  the  anathemas  {Kurds 
and  Christians ,  p.  189). 

3  Mr.  Ainsworth  tells  the  story  of  a  crucifix  shown  to  the  Patriarch  by  a 
Catholic  missionary.  The  Patriarch  was  filled  with  horror,  cried  out : 
"  Oh  the  infidels  !  the  blasphemers  !  "  and  said  it  could  only  be  the  work  of 
Jews,  who  wished  to  mock  Christ's  agony  {Travels  and  Researches  in  Asia 
Minor,  ii.  p.  249). 

4  A.  d'Avril  :   La  Chaldee  chrHienne,  p.  14. 

5  Badger  :   op.  cit.  132-136.  6  Badger  :   op.  cit.  ii.  82-88. 

7  lb.  98-110.  No  Eastern  Church  has  any  trace  of  Calvinism.  If  any- 
thing, they  err  in  the  direction  of  semi-Pelagian  ism.  See  Orth.  Eastern 
Church,  pp.  252-253. 


138        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

quite  willing  to  assure  their  Anglican  benefactors  that  they  do  not 
hold  with  the  Pope  about  Purgatory.1  They  honour  relics  and 
use  dust  from  the  tombs  of  saints  (called  hndna,  "  grace  ")  as  a 
kind  of  charm.2  They  invoke  our  Lady  and  other  saints  con- 
stantly in  their  liturgy  and  prayers.  They  are  (like  most  Easterns) 
rather  vague  as  to  the  number  of  the  Sacraments,  inasmuch  as 
they  have  not  yet  conceived  a  special  class  of  rites  distinct  from 
the  large  number  of  what  we  call  Sacramentals.  Joseph  Assemani 
thought  that  they  have  only  three  real  Sacraments  :  Baptism, 
Holy  Eucharist,  Holy  Orders.  But  they  hold  the  number  seven, 
though  (like  the  Orthodox  at  one  time)  they  are  not  quite  sure 
which  the  seven  are.  The  Nestorian  Patriarch  Timothy  II  (1318- 
1360)  gave  as  the  seven  Sacraments  :  (1)  Holy  Orders  ;  (2)  the 
consecration  of  a  church  and  altar  ;  (3)  Baptism  and  Holy  Oil 
(  =  Confirmation)  ;  (4)  the  holy  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and 
Blood ;  (5)  the  blessing  of  monks ;  (6)  the  Office  for  the  Dead ; 
(7)  Marriage.  Then  he  adds  as  a  supplement  :  "  Indulgence,  or 
penance  and  the  forgiving  of  sins." 3  Mr.  Badger  says  that  they 
now  "  generally  allow  "  :  (1)  Orders  ;  (2)  Baptism  ;  (3)  the  Oil  of 
Unction  ;  (4)  the  Oblation  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ ;  (5) 
Absolution  ;  (6)  the  Holy  Leaven  ;  (7)  the  Sign  of  the  Cross.4 
Putting  these  two  lists  together,  we  have  all  our  seven  Sacraments, 
with  some  additions,  such  as  consecrating  a  church  and  the  Holy 
Leaven  (see  p.  150).  Their  liturgical  books  have  a  form  for 
confession  and  absolution,5  but  its  use  is  now  practically  extinct 
among  them.  The  modern  Nestorian  does  not  confess  his  sins  ; 
I  am  told,6  because  the  clergy  cannot  keep  the  seal.  They 
believe  the  Holy  Eucharist  to  be  a  commemorative  sacrifice.7  In 
their  creed,  of  course,  they  have  not  the  Filioque  clause.  They  do 
not  seem  to  have  considered  the  question  of  the  procession  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  much  ;  sometimes  they  deny  the  double  procession.8 

1  Making  the  usual  mistake  of  thinking  material  fire  in  Purgatory  part 
of  the  Roman  faith  (Badger  :  op.  cit.  130-131).  Their  attitude  seems  to 
be  exactly  that  of  the  Orthodox  [Orth.  Eastern  Church,  388-390). 

2  Badger  :   ib.  137. 

3  Assemani:   Bibl.  Orient,  hi.  (1)    356  ;   iii.  (2),  240. 

4  Op.  cit.  ii.  150.  5  Ib.  155-159. 

6  By  a  former  Anglican  missionary.  7  Badger  :  op.  cit.  ii.  176. 

8  So  'Ebedyeshu'  of  Nisibis  in  his  Jewel,  part  iii.  chap.  4  (Badger  :  op. 
cit.  ii.  399-400) — at  least  by  implication. 


THE   PRESENT   NESTORIAN   CHURCH      139 

But  Mr.  Badger  quotes  Nestorian  writers  who  say  plainly  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  proceeds  from  the  Father  and  the  Son.1  With  regard 
to  what  they  hold  about  the  Church,  it  is  difficult  to  understand 
exactly  their  position.  They  certainly  believe  that  they  alone 
hold  the  true  faith  as  to  our  Lord's  nature  and  person — that  all 
who  did  agree  with  them  have  fallen  away  on  this  point.  They 
say  so  plainly  ;  they  divide  Christendom  into  three  sects,  the 
Monophysites,  Melkites  (including  L  ranks),  and  the  "Easterns" 
(themselves),  who  alone  "  never  changed  their  faith,  but  kept  it  as 
they  received  it  from  the  Apostles."  Both  the  other  sects  are 
refuted  from  the  Bible.2  So  it  would  follow  that  all  others  are 
heretics,  that  the  whole  and  only  true  Church  of 'Christ  is  the  tiny 
handful  which  obeys  Mar  Shim'un.  Yet  I  doubt  whether  really 
they  would  have  so  magnificent  a  courage  of  their  convictions. 
Probably,  especially  now  under  Anglican  influence,  they  have 
evolved  some  cloudy  kind  of  Branch  theory — themselves  being  the 
purest  branch.  One  wonders  whether  the  American  Presby- 
terians and  the  Danish  Lutherans  (with  the  ambiguous  Nestorian 
archdeacon  and  Lutheran  missionary  Nestorius  George  Malech) 
are  branches.  And  it  would  be  very  interesting  to  know  what 
Mar  Shim'un  really  thinks  of  the  orthodoxy,  orders  and  ecclesi- 
astical position  of  his  Anglican  advisers.3 

Needless  to  say,  Nestorians  entirely  reject  the  universal  primacy 
and  infallibility  of  the  Pope,  though  they  acknowledge  him  as 
first  of  the  Patriarchs.4  If  they  were  consistent  they  could  not 
give  him  even  this  honour,  since  he  is  steeped  in  Ephesian  and 
monohypostatic  error,  being  himself  a  mighty  leader  of  EpTiesian 
heretics. 

Nestorian  theology,  then,  in  general,  is  only  half  developed  and 
cloudy,  as  is  that  of  all  smaller  Eastern  Churches.     The  worst 

1  lb.  ii.  79.  Dr.  Neale  is  very  angry  with  this  and  will  not  admit  it 
(p.  425,  n.  25).  Badger  is  an  old-fashioned  Anglican  who  takes  the  Thirty  - 
nine  Articles  seriously  ;  so  Neale  falls  foul  of  him  each  time,  whether  he  says 
"  the  sacramental  character  of  Penance  is  denied  by  the  Church  of  England  " 
(ii.  154),  or  whether  he  stands  up  for  the  Filioque  because  of  Article  V. 

2  Jewel,  iii.  4-5  (ib.  pp.  399-401). 

3  For  Anglicans  certainly  accept  Ephesus.  As  for  Anglican  orders, 
presumably  Nestorians  know  nothing  at  all  about  them,  except  what  they 
are  told  by  Anglicans  themselves. 

4  See  p.  130,  n.  6. 


140        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

fault  of  these  pious  mountaineers  is  a  tendency  to  assure  pro- 
miscuous Protestant  visitors  that  at  bottom  they  agree  with  them 
on  all  sorts  of  points.  As  so  often  happens,  the  danger  of  Roman 
propaganda,  their  fear  and  dislike  of  the  Uniates,  leads  them  to 
welcome  alliance  with  anyone  who  is  against  the  Pope,  who 
assures  them  that  he  seeks  not  to  turn  them  into  enslaved  Chaldees. 


4.  Nestorian  Rites 

Their  rites  and  liturgy  are  perhaps  the  most  interesting  thing 
about  the  Nestorians.  Certainly  most  of  the  interest  which  the 
West  takes  in  this  obscure  little  sect  is  because  of  its  liturgy.  For 
these  people  in  their  remote  mountains  still  keep  and  use  one  of 
the  great  historic  rites  of  Christendom. 

The  East  Syrian  rite  evolved  in  Edessa  before  the  4th  century. 
Saint  Ephrem  used  and  quotes  it.1  The  Syriac  (Jacobite)  poet 
James  of  Srug  (f  521)  2  and  Philoxenos  of  Hierapolis  (f  523) 3 
gave  further  information  about  the  East  Syrian  rite  of  their 
time.  Two  fragments  written  in  the  6th  century  in  a  Coptic 
monastery  in  Egypt  (now  in  the  British  Museum)  show  an 
unexpected  use  of  what  is  fundamentally  the  East  Syrian  rite 
in  that  country,4  apparently  by  Nestorian  colonies  (p.  104). 

The  origin  of  this  rite  is  much  discussed.  Liturgies  are  not 
composed  as  original  works  at  some  definite  date  ;  a  new  rite  does 
not  suddenly  spring  out  of  nothing.  Their  development  is  always 
gradual  modification  from  an  earlier  form,  till  we  come  back  to 
the  original  rite,  fluid  in  details  but  uniform  in  type,  of  the  first 
three  centuries.5  If  we  suppose  the  generally  admitted  principle 
that  the  origin  of  all  Eastern  rites  is  either  Antioch  or  Alexandria, 

1  See  Probst :   Liturgie  des  tfen  Jahrhunderts  (Munster,  1893),  pp.  308- 

318. 

2  Bishop  of  Batnan  (Duval  :   Litter  ature  syriaque,  352-356). 

3  Also  an  ardent  Jacobite.  His  name  in  Syriac  is  Aksnaya  (Xenaias,  see 
Duval:  ib.  356-358).  Hierapolis  is  Syriac  Mabug,  Arabic  Manbig,  on  the 
Euphrates. 

4  A  list  of  later  writers  from  whom  information  about  this  rite  may  be 
gathered  will  be  found  in  Brightman  ;  Eastern  Liturgies,  pp.  lxxx-lxxxi. 

5  Liturgies  develop  by  modification  as  do  languages.  They  too  have 
dialects  and  groups  of  related  forms.  See  Fortescue  :  The  Mass  (Long- 
mans, 1912),  chaps,  i.-ii. 


THE  PRESENT  NESTORIAN  CHURCH      141 

we  must  count  this  one  as  (remotely)  Antiochene.  It  certainly 
does  not  come  from  Egypt.  Moreover,  as  opposed  to  the  Alexan- 
drine group,  it  has  Antiochene  features,  such  as  the  litany-form 
of  public  prayer ;  though  the  Intercession  comes  before  the 
Consecration.1  The  Calendar,  too,  shows  traces  of  Antiochene 
arrangement.  On  the  other  hand,  if  it  is  Antiochene,  it  is  only 
remotely  so.  If  originally  it  was  the  rite  of  Antioch2  which 
came  to  Edessa,  it  evolved  there  into  something  very  unlike  its 
original  form.  The  East  Syrian  rite  lacks  a  great  number  of 
peculiarities  which  we  associate  with  Antioch.  So  some  writers 
do  not  see  sufficient  reason  to  class  it  under  Antioch  at  all. 
It  stands  apart  from  the  great  liturgical  group  of  Apostolic 
Constitutions  VIII,  St.  James,  the  Jacobite,  Byzantine,  and 
Armenian  rites  ;  and  so  they  count  it  as  forming  a  class  of 
its  own.3 

This  ancient  Edessene  or  East  Syrian  rite  then  naturally 
spread  to  Persia 4  with  the  Edessene  missionaries.  It  was 
used  in  the  Persian  Church,  and  then  by  all  Nestorians.  It  is 
their  speciality  ;  while  Jacobites  have  the  liturgy  of  Jerusalem- 
Antioch,  and  the  Orthodox  since  the  13th  century  that  of 
Constantin  ople.5 

The  books  used  in  this  rite  have  not  all  been  translated.  The 
holy  liturgy  in  the  strict  sense  (the  Eucharistic  service)  is  natur- 
ally what  has  most  been  studied.  There  are  many  versions  and 
editions  of  this  (p.  151,  n.  4).  Of  the  other  functions  only  frag- 
ments can  be  read  in  a  European  language. 

The  services  of  the  East  Syrian  rite  are  first  the  Divine  Office 
(the  Canonical  Hours),  which  should  be  said  daily  in  ev>.  ry  church. 
They   are  Ramshd  (dra?nshd="  at  evening")  corresponding  to 

1  Just  before  the  anaphora.  The  Antiochene  place  is  after  the  Consecration. 

2  In  any  case  before  the  development  of  Antioch-Jerusalem  represented 
by  St.  James's  liturgy  (The  Mass,  pp.  80-84). 

3  So  Baumstark  :  Die  Messe  im  Morgenland  (Kempten  and  Munich, 
1906),  48-52.  Renaudot  thinks  that  the  reason  why  Nestorians  did  not 
keep  the  Antiochene  rite  is  that  their  sect  was  not  formed  of  native  Syrians 
so  much  as  of  fugitives  from  all  parts  of  the  empire,  who  gathered  at  Edessa 
and  then  in  Persia  (Lit.  Orient.  Coll.  ii.  pp.  ii-iii). 

4  Brightman  calls  it  "  the  Persian  rite  "  (Eastern  Liturgies,  245-305). 

5  The  Uniate  Chaldees,  of  course,  have  the  same  rite  (corrected)  as  the 
Nestorians. 


142    THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

our  Vespers x  or  to  the  Byzantine  '  eo-Tteptvov,  sung  just  after  sunset. 
Then  comes  the  Subd'd  ("  perfecting"),  Compline  or  dTroSewrvov. 
This  is  now  sung  only  during  the  great  Lent,  at  the  "  Fast  of  the 
Ninevites  "  (p.  148),  and  on  certain  vigils,  when  it  is  joined  to 
Ramsha.  The  night-office  (Nocturns,  ^ctovvktlov)  is  Sluthd 
dlilyd  ("  prayer  at  night  ")  ;  then  comes  Shahrd  (vigil),  to  be  sung 
at  dawn  (Lauds,  opOpos).  The  first  day-prayer  is  Sluthd  dsafrd 
("  morning-prayer,"  our  Prime).  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  night- 
office  is  now  rarely  said.  Shahra  and  Slutha  dsafra  are  joined 
together  as  the  morning  prayer,  and  the  Slutha  dlilya,  if  said  at 
all,  is  also  joined  to  this.  There  are,  then,  in  practice  two  prayers 
in  the  day — at  morning  and  evening.  The  people  are  summoned 
to  these  by  the  sound  of  a  wooden  Semantron,2  and  attend  very 
religiously  at  the  public  morning  and  evening  prayers.3  The 
other  services  are,  of  course,  first  of  all  the  holy  liturgy ;  then 
baptism,  ordination,  marriage  and  other  sacraments,  funerals, 
the  consecration  of  churches,  and  various  blessings,  sacramentals 
and  so  on. 

The  books  in  which  these  rites  may  be  found  are  many  and 
confused.  It  is  a  result  of  the  archaic  state  of  the  Nestorian 
Church  that  its  books  have  not  yet  been  codified  and  arranged 
in  an  ordered  scheme.  There  are,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  various 
alternative  collections  of  prayers  and  services  which  overlap  ;  so 
that  the  same  matter  may  be  found  in  different  books.  In  this 
primitive  state  of  liturgical  books  there  does  not  seem  any  reason 
why  a  man  should  not  write  out  the  prayers  of  any  collection  of 
services  he  likes  and  call  it  by  some  suitable  name.  The  usual 
books  are  :  for  the  holy  liturgy  the  Taksd  (t<x£is)  4  of  the  liturgies. 
With  this  are  often  bound  up  the  Taksd  d'mddd  (rite  of  baptism), 
the  Taksd  dsydmldd5  (rite  of  ordination),  and  other  services,  to 
make  a  book  corresponding  to  the  Byzantine  tvxoXoyiov.6    The 

1  As  in  all  Eastern  rites,  the  liturgical  day  begins  with  its  first  vespers. 

2  A  piece  of  wood  struck  with  a  hammer  ;  now  being  supplanted  by  bells 
copied  from  Russia  (Maclean  and  Browne  :  The  Catholicos  of  the  East,  p.  213). 

3  For  the  composition  of  these  services  see  below,  p.  149. 

4  Taksa  is  a  general  name  for  the  order  of  any  service,  as  we  say  Ritus. 
So  there  is  the  Taksa  of  baptism  {ritus  baptismi),  and  so  on. 

5  Sydm  tdd,  imposition  of  hands. 

6  So  the  Chaldaean  (Uniate)  book  is  :  Taksd  drdzd  'am  nekpaydthd  (the 
Book  of  the  Mystery  with  continuations) , 


THE   PRESENT  NESTORIAN   CHURCH      143 

deacon's  part  of  the  service  is  sometimes  written  in  a  separate 
book  (Shamashutha,  Smkovikov)  .  The  lessons  are  contained  in 
three  books  ;  the  Kerydnd  ("  readings  ")  contain  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  Acts,  the  Ewangeliyun,  the  Gospels,  and  the  Shllhd 
("  Apostle  "),  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  The  Choir  uses  the  Dauidd 
(Psalter),  the  Hudrd  ("  circle  ")  containing  the  variable  chants  for 
all  Sundays,  the  Kdshkul  ("  containing  all ")  for  the  week-days, 
and  the  Turgdmd  ("interpretation  "),  in  which  are  found  the  verses 
sung  between  the  lessons,  like  our  Gradual.  These  books  also 
contain  part  of  what  is  wanted  for  the  Divine  Office.  They  are 
further  supplemented  by  the  Gazd  ("treasury"),1  the  Wardd 
("  rose  "),2  which  supply  certain  variable  hymns  and  anthems; 
also  the  Kddm  wadathar  ("  before  and  after  "),  containing  selec- 
tions from  the  psalter  and  prayers  for  Sundays  and  week-days. 
The  Abu-halim  (called  after  its  composer)  has  collects  for  the  end 
of  the  Night-prayer  on  Sundays.  The  Bauthd  dmnwdye  ("  nocturn 
of  the  Ninevites  ")  has  metrical  hymns  ascribed  to  St.  Efrem,  said 
at  the  Fast  of  the  Ninevites.  Besides  these  are  books  containing 
special  offices,  those  of  baptism  ('mddd)  and  ordination  (Sydmldd), 
mentioned  above,  those  for  the  marriage-service  (Brdkd,  "  bless- 
ing "),  for  the  burial  of  clergy  (Kahnuthd,  "priesthood")  arid 
laymen  ('anidd,  "  funeral ").  The  Taksd  dhusdyd  ("  rite  of 
mercy  ")  gives  the  services  for  reconciling  penitents  and  for 
absolution.     There  are  other  books  containing  other  functions.3 

From  this  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Nestorian  liturgical  books  are 
in  a  bewildering  state  of  confusion.  It  is  no  light  matter  to  put 
together  any  given  service  from  the  various  books  used  in  it.  Nor 
do  they  always  know  their  own  books.  The  difficulty  is  avoided 
to  a  great  extent  by  the  fact  that  singers  know  vast  quantities  of 
the  services  by  heart.4  The  chief  books  have  been  printed  (in 
Syriac)  by  the  Anglican  mission.5     The  Dominicans  at  Mosul  and 

1  Td£a  ;    Persian  :  Gang.  2  Arabic :  ward. 

3  For  Nestorian  service-books  see  Badger  :  The  Nestorians  and  their 
Rituals,  ii.  16-25  ;  and  Maclean  and  Browne  :  The  Catholicos  of  the  East, 
229-233.  4  Maclean  and  Browne  :   op.  cit.  p.  232. 

5  But  apparently  incompletely,  inasmuch  as  the  Anglicans  leave  out  the 
names  of  heretics  (Nestorius,  etc.)  and  obviously  heretical  matter.  Rather 
a  feeble  compromise,  if  one  is  going  to  print  the  service-books  of  a  heretical 
sect  at  all.  The  Nestorians,  I  am  told,  who  buy  and  .use  these  books,  supply 
in  manuscript  or  from  memory  what  the  Anglicans  have  omitted. 


i44   THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

the  Lazarist  missionaries  publish  the  Chaldaearj   books,  which 


J£UAX?©JCG    jLtei  £&3X 


«jjsa/mij--         ^r>\«...  t,  "'■•-jofl^vv".  _ll    «&V   milk  . 


^>-^m 


FIG.   4. THE  PATRIARCHAL  CHURCH  AT  KUDSHANIS. 

(From  a  photograph  by  the  Rev.  F.  N.  Heazell.) 

correspond,  but  have  been  revised  and  corrected  at  Rome. 
These  Chaldaean  books  also  are  arranged  on  a  more  systematic 
way,  under  the  influence  of  our  liturgical  books. 


THE   PRESENT  NESTORIAN   CHURCH      145 

Nestorian  churches  are  mostly  small  and  poor  ;  though  some 
are  of  considerable  antiquity  and  archaeological  interest,  and  a  few 
fairly  large  and  handsome.  The  Moslem  law,  till  the  other  day, 
was  that  Christians  might  repair  their  existing  churches,  but  not 
build  new  ones.1  On  the  outside  the  churches  have  no  con- 
spicuous sign  to  proclaim  what  they  are  (and  so  attract  the  fana- 
ticism of  Kurds  and  Turks) — only  a  small  plain  cross  over  the 
door,  which  is  kissed  by  people  as  they  go  in.  A  special  feature, 
now  almost  a  recognized  tradition  (at  least  in  Turkey),  is  that  the 
only  entrance  to  the  church  is  by  one  very  low  and  narrow  door, 
about  three  feet  high  (often  less),  through  which  one  stoops  and 
crouches  to  go  in.  This  is  said  to  be  so  made  in  order  that  every- 
one be  forced  to  bow  as  he  enters  the  holy  place.  The  real  reason 
is  no  doubt  to  prevent  Kurds  driving  their  cattle  into  the  church. 
Inside,  the  nave  is  divided  from  the  sanctuary  by  a  wall  right  up 
to  the  roof  which  is  pierced  by  an  arched  opening  about  five  or  six 
feet  wide.  The  division,  then,  is  more  marked  than  in  Byzantine 
churches  by  the  Ikonostasion.  There  is  a  curtain  which  can  be 
drawn  across  this  arch,  sometimes  doors  as  well.  Outside  the 
sanctuary  wall  is  a  platform,  as  high  as  the  sanctuary ;  then  steps 
down  and  a  low  wall  broken  in  the  middle,  something  like  our 
communion-rail.  Against  this  low  wall  are  one  or  more  tables 
(not  really  altars)  on  which  rest  books  and  a  cross,  kissed  by  the 
faithful  on  entering  and  leaving.  The  choir  stands  in  a  group  on 
one  side  in  front  of  this  low  wall.  The  Divine  Office  is  sung  in  the 
nave  ;  sometimes  (as  in  the  Patriarchal  church  at  Kudshanis) 
there  is  an  open-air  chapel,  partly  roofed  over,  at  the  side  of  the 
church,  with  another  table  for  the  cross,  where  the  office  is  sung 
in  summer.  Inside  the  sanctuary  2  is  a  raised  platform  under  a 
canopy.  On  this  stands  the  altar,  generally  adorned  with  a  plain 
cross,  two  candles  and  the  gospel-book.  A  lectern  for  reading  the 
gospel  is  moved  to  the  sanctuary-arch  during  the  liturgy.  There 
are  cupboards  in  the  sanctuary  for  the  holy  oils  and  vessels.    The 

1  I  do  not  know  how  far  this  has  been  modified  by  the  new  Constitution. 
But  for  some  time  back  it  was  possible  to  evade  the  law  by  bribery,  and  to 
obtain  a  firman  for  building  a  new  church.  A  great  number  of  Christian 
churches  of  all  sects  were  built  all  over  the  Turkish  Empire  in  the  19th 
century. 

2  Kdush  kudshe,  "  Holy  of  holies." 

10 


146        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 


baptistery  forms  a  room  leading  out  of  the  sanctuary  or  nave. 
It  is  often  also  used  as  a  vestry,  and  generally  has  a  stove  for 

baking  the 
bread  to  be 
consecrated.1 
Nestorian 
churches  are 
called  after 
our  Lady 
(Mart  Mary- 
am),  the  ap- 
ostles or  other  saints, 
very  often  after  a  mar- 
tyr of  the  Persian  per- 
secutions or  their  own 
hermits  or  bishops. 
Everyone  takes  off  his 
shoes  in  church,  but  the 
turban  or  tarbush  only 
during  services.  The 
clergy  in  ordinary  life 
do  not  wear  a  special 
dress  ;  in  the  mountains 
they  often  have  a  black 
turban.  Bishops  gener- 
ally wear  a  long  robe, 
like  a  cassock,  and  the 
usual  turban.  The  ton- 
sure, though  prescribed  by  the  canons,  at  least  for  monks,  is 
not  now  worn  ;  but  all  the  clergy  have  a  beard.  To  shave  the 
beard  is  a  sign  of  degradation  and  a  punishment  inflicted  by  the 
Patriarch  for  certain  offences.2 

The  universal  liturgical  vestment  is  the  tunic,  called  kuthind 
(xL™v)>  corresponding  to  the  ottolxo-piov  or  alb.     It  is  girdled  by  a 

1  See  plan  of  the  Patriarchal  church  (Mar  Shalita)  at  Kudshanis  above. 
Plans  of  other  churches  in  Maclean  and  Browne  :  op.  cit.  pp.  296,  301.  The 
inside  of  a  large  church  at  Mosul  in  Badger  :   op.  cit.  ii.  pp.  20-21. 

2  Maclean  and  Browne,  pp.  97,  204. 


FIG.   5. PLAN  OF  THE  PATRIARCHAL  CHURCH 

AT  KUDSHANIS. 

A,  Sanctuary;  B,  Baptistery;  C,  Place  for  baking  the 
holy  bread  ;  D,  Entrance  (by  ladder)  ;  E,  Room 
where  Rabban  Yuhanan  (Yonan)  lived. 


THE   PRESENT  NESTORIAN   CHURCH      147 

belt,  zundrd  (^mvaptov).  Subdeacon  and  deacon  wear  a  stole 
(urara,  updptov)  ;  the  subdeacon  winds  it  from  the  left  shoulder 
under  the  right  arm,1  the  deacon's  stole  hangs  straight  down 
from  the  left  shoulder.  The  priest's  (and  bishop's)  stole  is  made 
like  the  Byzantine  iTnTpaxrjXtov,  hanging  down  in  front  like 
ours,  but  sewn  together  (or  rather  one  piece)  with  a  hole  through 
which  to  put  the  head.  The  garment  corresponding  to  our 
chasuble  {kaflla^paklld,  paind,  ma'prd)  is  the  same  as  the 
Byzantine  (paivoXiov,  except  that  it  is  not  permanently  joined  in 
front.  It  looks  then  exactly  like  our  cope  without  a  hood.  It  is 
worn  by  priests  and  bishops,  and  is  used  as  both  cope  and  chasuble. 
They  have  no  omophorion.2  Bishops  wear  a  kind  of  embroidered 
amice,  called  birund,  over  the  head  ;  they  carry  a  pastoral  staff 
(hutrd)  and  a  small  cross  with  which  they  bless  the  people.  They 
have  no  liturgically  fixed  colours.3 

The  East  Syrian  Calendar  is  based  on  the  Julian  reckoning 
(Old  Style),  for  the  months,  and  on  the  "  Era  of  the  Greeks,"  4 
namely  from  311  B.C.,  for  the  years.  They  now  know  and 
begin  to  use  the  ordinary  Christian  reckoning  for  the  years. 
The  ecclesiastical  year  is  divided  into  nine  periods  of,  more 
or  less,  seven  weeks  each.  Each  of  these  is  called  a  shabu'd 
("seven").  The  year  begins  with  Subdrd  ("annunciation") 
on  December  1 ; 5  Subdrd  has  four  Sundays  as  preparation  for 
Christmas,  and  so  corresponds  exactly  to  our  Advent.  The 
second  Shabu'a  is  of  the  Epiphany ;  the  third  is  the  Great  Fast 
(Lent)  beginning  the  seventh  Monday  before  Easter  ;  the  fourth 
is  the  Shabu'a  of  the  Resurrection  (to  Pentecost) ;  the  fifth  that  of 


1  This  is  the  theory  in  the  case  of  the  subdeacon  and  all  lesser  clerks,  as 
the  Byzantine  lesser  clerks  were  the  epitrachelion.  But,  as  a  matter  oi 
fact,  no  subdeacon  is  now  ordained  (see  p.  157). 

2  J.  Braun  :  Die  liturgische  Gewandung  im  Occident  u.  Orient  (Freiburg 
i.  Br.,  1907),  p.  666. 

3  No  Eastern  Church  has.  Sequence  of  colour  is  a  late  and  purely 
Western  feature.  For  Nestorian  vestments  in  general  see  Assemani  :  Bibl. 
Or.  hi.  pt.  ii.  pp.  682-683  ;  J.  Braun  :  op.  cit.  under  each  heading  ;  Maclean  : 
East  Syrian. 

4  Namely,  of  the  Seleucids. 

5  The  Kalendars  usually  begin  with  the  month  of  Tishrin  1  (October), 
and  popular  calculation  often  counts  the  Epiphany  as  the  beginning  of  a 
new  year  (cf.  Maclean  and  Browne  :   op.  cit.  p.  328). 


148        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

the  Apostles  (six  Sundays)  ;  the  last  of  these  Sundays  is  the  Sun- 
day of  the  twelve  Apostles  and  the  first  of  the  next  Shabu'a  (of 
summer).  This  Shabu'a  (the  sixth)  lasts  till  the  seventh  Sunday 
after  that  of  the  Apostles.  Then  begins  the  seventh  Shabu'a,  of 
Elias.  Two  Sundays  of  Moses  and  four  of  the  Dedication  (of  the 
Churches)  form  the  eighth  and  ninth  Shabu'e.1  There  are  four 
fasts  in  the  year :  Subara  (Advent) ,  lasting  twenty-five  days 
(counted  back  from  Christmas) ;  the  Fast  of  the  Ninevites,  namely 
the  Monday,  Tuesday,  and  Wednesday  beginning  twenty  days 
before  the  Great  Fast,  in  memory  of  the  penance  of  Nineveh 
when  Jonas  preached ;  then  the  Great  Fast,  forty-nine  days  before 
Easter ; 2  and  the  Fast  of  St.  Mary  from  August  1  to  August  15. 3 
The  fasts  include  Sundays,  and  are  kept,  as  by  all  Eastern  people, 
exceedingly  severely.  Every  day  is  what  we  should  call  a  "  black 
fast/'  including  abstinence  from  flesh-meat,  lacticinia,  eggs  and 
all  animal  produce.  All  Wednesdays  and  Fridays  are  days  of 
abstinence. 

The  chief  feast  is,  of  course,  Easter  ('ad'idd  kabird,  "  great 
feast").  Christmas  (December  25)  is  the  "  little  feast "  ('ad'idd 
katind).  The  Epiphany  (January  6)  is  also  a  great  day;  it  is 
the  Feast  of  the  Baptism  of  our  Lord,  as  with  all  Easterns. 
Other  great  feasts  are  Lady-day,  Ascension-day,  WTiitsunday,  the 
Transfiguration,  Death  of  St.  Mary  (August  15),  Holy  Rood  (Sep- 
tember 13),  etc.  The  main  part  of  their  Calendar  consists  of  mov- 
able feasts,  not  fixed  to  a  day  of  the  month,  but  falling  on  a 
certain  week-day  after  a  Sunday — mainly  determined  by  Easter. 
Thus  all  Fridays  are  feasts  of  great  Saints  :  the  Friday  after  the 
first  Sunday  after  Epiphany  is  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  the  next 
Friday  the  Four  Evangelists,  the  next  St.  Stephen,  and  so  on. 
Mar  Addai  is  on  the  fifth  Sunday  after  Easter,  Mar  Mari  on  the 
second  Friday  of  the  summer  Shabu'a.  Mar  Nestorius  comes  with 
Diodore  and  Theodore  as  the  "  Greek  Doctors  "  on  the  Friday 

1  Nilles  :  Kalendarium  manuale,  ii.  681.  Maclean  and  Browne  (p.  350) 
count  four  Sundays  of  Moses.  Their  number,  and  the  number  of  those 
after  Epiphany,  must  depend  on  whether  Easter  falls  early  or  late. 

2  Sometimes  they  begin  this  fast  on  the  Sunday  (our  Quinquagesima), 
making  it  last  fifty  days. 

3  Like  the  Byzantine  Fast  of  the  Holy  Mother  of  God  ;  only,  with  the 
Nestorians  it  is,  of  course,  not  "  of  the  Mother  of  God." 


THE   PRESENT  NESTORIAN   CHURCH      149 

after  the  fourth  Sunday  after  Epiphany.  Maundy  Thursday  is 
the  "  Passover,"  Good  Friday  is  "  Friday  of  Suffering  "  (alitur- 
gical),  Holy  Saturday  "  the  Great  Sabbath  "  or  "  Sabbath  of 
Light."  1 

We  have  already  noted  the  order  of  the  Divine  Office,  now 
practically  morning  and  evening  prayer  (p.  142).  It  consists  of 
psalms,  collects,  anthems,  and  many  special  compositions,  hymns 
in  rhythmical  prose  like  the  Byzantine  rpoTrdpta.  The  psalter  is 
divided  into  twenty  portions  called  hitldle  ("  praises ")  like 
KaOio-fjLaTa.  The  Lord's  Prayer  and  psalms  are  often  farced. 
All  the  services  are  said  in  classical  Syriac,  of  which  the  common 
people  understand  perhaps  as  much  as  modern  Greeks  or  Russians 
do  of  their  services.  All  is  sung  in  the  strange  enharmonic 
cadences  which  Eastern  people  know  by  heart.  A  careful  and 
interesting  description  of  the  office  will  be  found  in  Maclean  and 
Browne  :  The  Catholicos  of  the  East.2  This  book  is  so  easily 
accessible  that  it  does  not  seem  worth  while  to  repeat  the  account 
here.  Instead,  as  a  specimen  of  Nestorian  prayer,  the  Ldk  mdrd 
("  Thee,  O  Lord  ")  may  serve  ;  it  is  a  short  responsory  occurring 
constantly  in  all  their  services  :  "  Thee,  Lord  of  all,  we  confess  ; 
and  thee,  Jesus  Christ,  we  glorify  ;  for  thou  art  the  quickener  of 
our  bodies,  and  thou  art  the  saviour  of  our  souls. *I  was  glad  when 
they  said  unto  me,  We  will  go  into  the  house  of  the  Lord.*Thee, 
O  Lord,  etc.*Glory  be  to  the  Father,  etc.  From  everlasting  to 
everlasting,  Amen.*Thee,  O  Lord,  etc."  3 

In  all  Christian  Churches  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  the  chief  rite. 
The  Nestorians  celebrate  it  rarely,  on  the  chief  feasts — not  even 
every  Sunday.4  It  is  celebrated  early  in  the  morning,  except  on 
fast-days,  when  it  sometimes  comes  in  the  afternoon.  Everyone 
who  receives  Communion  must  be  fasting  from  midnight.     The 

1  The  whole  Nestorian  Calendar  is  given  by  Nilles  :  Kalendarium 
manuale,  ii.  684-688.     See  also  Maclean  and  Browne  :   op.  cit.  346-352. 

2  Chap  x.,  The  Daily  Services,  pp.  212-242. 

3  lb.  219.  This  prayer  is  attributed  to  Simon  Bar  Sabba'e  (see  p.  41). 
The  Syriac  text,  with  the  notes  to  which  they  sing  it  (but  made  chromatic), 
will  be  found  in  the  Revue  de  I 'Orient  chretien  for  1898,  p.  231. 

4  lb.  243-244.  The  usual  Syrian  name  for  the  rite  of  the  Holy  Eucharist 
(corresponding  to  our  word  "  Mass  ")  is  Kurbdnd  (Ar.  Kurbdn,  "  oblation  "), 
also  Kuddshd  (Ar.  Kudddsh,  "  holy  thing  ").  Lahmd  dkuddshd  {"  Bread  of 
holiness  ")  is  the  Blessed  Sacrament. 


150        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

celebrant  and  deacon  should  by  law  first  have  taken  part  in  the 
evening  prayer  the  day  before,  and  in  the  night  and  morning 
prayer.  Normally  there  is  only  one  Liturgy  in  the  same  church 
on  one  day. 

They  have  a  curious  belief  about  the  "holy  leaven," 1  sometimes 
even  counting  this  as  one  of  the  seven  Sacraments  (p.  138). 
Namely,  they  say  that  St.  John  the  Baptist  kept  some  of  the 
water  which  fell  from  our  Lord  at  his  baptism.  He  gave  this  to 
St.  John  the  Apostle.  At  the  last  supper  our  Lord  gave  St.  John 
two  loaves.  St.  John  mixed  one  with  the  baptism  water  and 
with  the  blood  which  flowed  from  our  Lord  on  the  cross.  The 
Apostles  then  ground  this  to  pieces,  mixed  it  with  flour  and  salt, 
and  divided  it  amongst  themselves,  so  that  the  leaven  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  our  Lord  should  always  remain  in  the  Church.  The 
Nestorians  believe  that  they  have  this  still,  alone  among  Christians. 
Nestorius,  when  he  was  deposed,  took  it  with  him  and  left  the 
West  without  it.  They  renew  this  "  holy  leaven  "  each  Maundy 
Thursday.  What  remains  from  last  year  is  mixed  with  fresh 
flour,  salt  and  oil  by  the  priest  and  deacon,  in  a  special  service. 
It  is  then  kept  in  a  vessel  in  the  sanctuary  all  the  year,  and  a  small 
portion  is  mixed  with  the  bread  for  the  Holy  Eucharist  before 
each  liturgy.     No  liturgy  may  be  celebrated  without  it. 

Most  Eastern  liturgies  begin  with  a  preparation  of  the  bread 
and  wine  to  be  consecrated.2  The  Nestorians  begin  at  the  very 
beginning  by  first  baking  the  bread.  The  celebrant  and  the 
deacon3  mix  flour  and  yeast4  with  a  little  oil  and  some  warm 
water,  in  the  baptistery  or  other  place  where  the  oven  for  this 
purpose  may  be.  The  celebrant  breaks  off  some  for  the  antidoron 
and  some  to  mix  with  that  of  the  next  liturgy  after  this  one.5    He 

1  Called  malkd  (king). 

2  The  Byzantine  irpoa-Ko/xiH.  It  is  really  the  offertory  act,  which  takes 
place  at  the  beginning  of  the  whole  service. 

3  They  wear  the  tunic,  girdle,  and  their  respective  forms  of  stole  (p.  147). 
The  celebrant  puts  on  the  ma'prd  at  the  beginning  of  the  liturgy  of  the 
faithful  (p.  153). 

4  Their  Eucharistic  bread  is,  of  course,  leavened. 

5  This  is  another  principle,  to  mix  some  of  the  bread  from  the  last  liturgy 
with  that  now  being  prepared.  This  is  meant  to  emphasize  the  unity  of 
the  sacrifice,  like  the  old  Latin  sancta  and  fermentum  (Fortescue  :  The  Mass, 
pp.  174-175,  366-37°) • 


THE   PRESENT  NESTORIAN   CHURCH      151 

brings  the  vessel  containing  the  holy  leaven  from  the  sanctuary 
and  mixes  a  small  portion  of  that  with  what  he  has  prepared. 
So  he  makes  the  loaves,  at  least  three  (there  should  be  seven), 
stamps  each  with  a  wooden  stamp,  puts  a  little  incense  on  the 
fire  and  bakes  them.  Then  they  are  put  on  the  paten  (much 
larger  than  ours)  and  carried  to  a  recess  in  the  sanctuary.  He 
pours  wine  into  the  chalice  with  water.  During  all  this  pre- 
paration he  says  psalms  (three  huldle,  Ps.  i.-xxx.)  and  prayers.1 
The  deacon  sweeps  the  sanctuary  and  makes  all  ready.  To 
save  time  all  this  is  generally  done  while  the  choir  are  saying 
morning  prayer.  Then  the  semantron  is  struck  and  the  people 
are  summoned  to  the  holy  liturgy. 

There  are  now  three  liturgies,  those  of  the  "  holy  apostles 
(Addai  and  Mari),"  "of  Nestorius,"  and  "of  Theodore  the  In- 
terpreter." Once  they  had  others.  Liturgies  "  of  Bar  Sauma," 
"  of  Narse,"  "  of  Diodore  of  Tarsus  "  are  mentioned,  but  are  no 
longer  extant.2  Of  the  three  now  used,  the  liturgy  of  the  Apostles3 
is  the  normal  one,  presumably  the  oldest,  which  represents  the 
ancient  East  Syrian  rite  by  direct  descent.  The  other  two  are 
fragments  completed  as  to  the  rest  by  parts  of  the  liturgy  of  the 
Apostles.  In  other  words,  when  they  are  used,  certain  parts  of 
the  normal  rite  are  left  out  and  the  corresponding  parts  of  one  of 
these  two  are  substituted.  The  Ordo  communis  (that  is,  the  pro- 
anaphoral  part  and  the  prayers  after  Communion)  is  always  that  of 
the  Apostles.  The  liturgies  of  Theodore  and  Nestorius  are  practi- 
cally only  alternative  anaphoras,  with  a  few  special  prayers  in  the 
Ordo  communis.  All  Nestorian  liturgies  have  been  translated  and 
edited  many  times.4  None  of  the  ascriptions  of  these  three  rites 
(to  Addai  and  Mari,  Theodore,  Nestorius),  except  perhaps  the  last, 
is  to  be  taken  seriously.  The  normal  one  is,  as  we  have  noted, 
merely  the  old  rite  of  Edessa,  presumably  having  come  there 

1  For  these  see  Brightman  :   Eastern  Liturgies,  pp.  247-252. 

2  See  Brightman  :   op.  cit.  p.  lxxx. 

3  Not  the  twelve  apostles,  but  Addai  and  Mari. 

4  Renaudot  gives  all  three  :  Liturgiarum  orient,  collectio  (ed.  ii.,  Frank- 
furt, 1847),  ii.  578-632.  Badger  translates  the  Liturgy  of  Nestorius  {The 
Nestorians  and  their  Kites,  ii.  chap.  xlii.  pp.  215-243)  ;  Brightman  gives  that 
of  the  Apostles  (Eastern  Liturgies,  247-305)  ;  Maclean  and  Browne  describe 
the  same  rite  (op.  cit.  247-265). 


152        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

originally  from  Antioch,  but  considerably  modified  in  the  East 
(p.  141).  The  Theodore  anaphora  is  a  not  very  important  variant 
of  this,  with,  however,  one  important  difference  (p.  155).  The 
so-called  Nest  onus  anaphora  is  considerably  different.  It  has 
long  been  suspected  of  being  a  foreign  element,  imported  inde- 
pendently from  somewhere  else.  Dr.  A.  Baumstark  has  now, 
perhaps,  solved  the  riddle.  By  a  careful  comparison  he  shows  its 
close  resemblance,  not  only  in  arrangement,  but  in  many  liturgical 
forms,  with  the  Byzantine  St.  Basil  rite.  He  concludes  that  it  is 
nothing  but  the  old  rite  of  Constantinople,  with  heretical  modi- 
fications, which  may  be  the  work  of  Nestorius  himself,  translated 
into  Syriac  by  Maraba  I  (536-552  ;  see  p.  82)  .l 

On  the  Sundays  from  Advent  to  Palm  Sunday  the  liturgy  of 
Theodore  is  used  ;  on  five  days — namely,  the  Epiphany,  St.  John 
the  Baptist  (Friday  after  Epiphany),  the  Greek  Doctors  (Friday 
after  the  fourth  Sunday  after  Epiphany),  Wednesday  of  the  Fast 
of  the  Ninevites  (p.  148),  and  Maundy  Thursday — that  of  Nestorius. 
On  all  other  days  the  Holy  Eucharist,  if  celebrated,  has  the  rite 
of  the  Apostles.  The  order  of  this,  in  outline,  is  as  follows  :  After 
the  preparation  of  the  offerings  the  celebrant  and  deacon  begin 
the  Enarxis.2  They  say  the  beginning  of  the  Gloria  in  excelsis 
(I.e.  ii.  14),  the  Lord's  Prayer,  some  psalms  farced,  the  "  an- 
them of  the  sanctuary,"  Lak  mara  (p.  149),  Ps.xxv.  6  ("  Lavabo  "), 
and  a  few  other  prayers.  Then  begins  the  liturgy  of  the  cate- 
chumens. The  Trisagion  is  sung.  Two  lessons  (normally  from  the 
Old  Testament  and  Acts)  are  read  by  lectors  at  the  platform  out- 
side the  sanctuary  wall,  inside  the  low  wall.3  An  antiphon,  called 
shurdyd  ("beginning"),  generally  consisting  of  a  farced  psalm 
(irpoKtifxevov,  "  gradual "),  is  sung.  The  deacon  reads  the  "  apostle" 
(always  from  an  epistle  of  St.  Paul),  and  the  choir  answers  :  "Glory 
be  to  the  Lord  of  Paul."  Incense  is  blessed  and  burnt,  the  Alle- 
luia is  sung  with  verses  called  zumdrd  ("chant  "),  then  a  long 
anthem  (turgdmd,  "  interpretation  "),  and  the  celebrant  reads  the 

1  A.  Baumstark  :  Die  Chrysostomosliturgie  u.  die  syrische  Ltturgie  des 
Nestorios,  in  Chrysostomika  (Rome,  1908).  pp.  771-857. 

2  'Ej/ap£js,  the  opening  of  all  Eastern  rites.  The  Nestorian  enarxis  is 
modelled  on  the  beginning  of  their  evening  prayer  (Ramsha). 

3  In  practice  these  are  very  often  omitted. 


THE   PRESENT  NESTORIAN   CHURCH      153 

gospel  of  the  day.     The  "  anthem  of  the  gospel  "  follows,  ending 
the  liturgy  of  the  catechumens. 

The  liturgy  of  the  faithful  begins  with  a  long  litany  (the  Antio- 
chene-Byzantine  ovvaTmq).1  This  is  the  prayer  of  the  faithful. 
It  follows  the  usual  order — petitions  for  all  classes.  The  people 
answer :  "  O  our  Lord,  have  mercy  on  us,"  and  then  to  a  second  list 
of  petitions  :  "  Amen."  It  ends  like  the  Antiochene  and  Byzan- 
tine forms  :  "  Let  us  commit  our  souls  and  one  another's  souls 
to  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost."  Meanwhile,  the 
celebrant  incenses  the  altar  and  puts  on  the  ma'prd  (chasuble) 
which  has  been  lying  on  it.  He  says  a  prayer  aloud,  summing 
up  the  petitions  of  the  prayer  of  the  faithful.  A  blessing  by  the 
celebrant  (the  "  Inclination  ")  follows,  and  then,  rather  late,  the 
deacon  says  the  form  of  dismissing  the  catechumens.2  Now  the 
bread  and  wine  are  brought  to  the  altar  ;  they  are  again  offered 
and  covered  with  a  veil.  The  "  anthem  of  the  mysteries  "  is 
sung  ;  meanwhile  the  celebrant  says  a  number  of  prayers  pre- 
paring to  offer  the  sacrifice.  Here  follows  the  Creed.3  The  pre- 
paration for  the  anaphora  consists  of  prayers  said  aloud  by  the 
deacon,  and  a  number  of  others  said  silently  by  the  celebrant. 
The  great  Intercession  follows  ;  they  count  the  kuddshd  as  be- 
ginning at  this  point.4  The  place  of  the  Intercession  is  an  impor- 
tant element  in  classifying  liturgies.  In  the  normal  Antiochene 
family  it  follows  the  Consecration  ;  at  Alexandria  it  comes  after 
Sursum  corda,  during  what  we  should  call  the  Preface.  Its  place 
in  the  East  Syrian  rite,  before  the  Sursum  corda,  as  soon  as  the 
gifts  are  brought  to  the  altar,  following  (or  a  part  of)  the  offertory- 
act,  is  now  unique,  though  there  are  reasons  which  make  this 
place  seem  natural.5  The  diptychs  are  read— namely,  a  list  of 
petitions  for  the  church,  katholikos,  bishops,  clergy,  kings,  and 

1  Called  karuzuthd  (K-noixraeiv). 

2  Merely  a  form  now,  of  course. 

3  The  Nicene  Creed  with  verbal  variants  and,  of  course,  without  the 
Filioque  clause. 

4  It  is  chiefly  from  here  to  the  Communion  that  the  other  two  liturgies 
have  different  prayers. 

5  Namely,  if  the  people  once  offered  the  bread  and  wine,  it  would  seem 
natural  to  pray  for  them  at  that  moment.  The  Intercession  came  at  the 
offertory  in  the  old  Gallican  rite.  Dom  Cagin  and  his  school  think  that 
originally  it  did  so  at  Rome  too  (Fortescue  :   The  Mass,  pp.  103,  144). 


154        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

so  on  (diptychs  of  the  living),  then  those  of  the  dead.1  To  each 
clause  the  people  answer  :  "  Amen."  The  diptychs  of  the  dead 
contain  a  very  long  list  of  saints.  The  form  is  :  "  Let  us  pray 
and  beseech  God  the  Lord  of  all  that  this  oblation  be  accepted  for 
all  the  just  and  righteous  fathers  who  were  well-pleasing  in  his 
sight  (let  us  pray).  Also  for  the  memorial  of  Adam  and  Abel.  .  .  ." 
"  And  of  Abraham  and  Isaac  and  Jacob.  ..."  There  is  first  a 
list  of  saints  of  the  Old  Testament.  Then  :  "  And  for  the 
memorial  of  the  Lady  Mary,  the  Holy  Virgin  who  bore  Christ  our 
Lord  and  our  Saviour."  Then  follow  St.  John  the  Baptist,  St. 
Peter,  St.  Paul,  the  evangelists  and  apostles  ;  "  Mar  Addai  and  Mar 
Mari,  the  apostles  who  were  the  converters  of  this  Eastern  region  " ; 
St.  Stephen ;  a  long  list  of  the  old  Persian  Katholikoi,  beginning 
with  Papa,  "  our  holy  fathers  the  208  bishops  who  were  assembled 
in  the  city  of  Nicaea  for  the  raising  up  of  the  true  faith  " ;  and  a 
great  number  of  East  Syrian  and  Persian  bishops,  monks  and 
martyrs.  The  people  answer  :  "  And  our  Lord  make  us  all  to 
partake  with  them  in  his  grace  and  mercy  for  ever.  Amen."  After 
the  Intercession  comes  the  kiss  of  peace.  The  deacon  warns  the 
people  to  attend,  the  gifts  are  unveiled,  and  the  anaphora  begins. 
The  celebrant  blesses  the  people  with  the  form  :  "  The  grace  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  .  .  ."  (2  Cor.  xiii.  13). 2  Then  :  "  Lift  up 
your  minds."  R. :  "  Unto  thee,  O  God  of  Abraham  and  Isaac 
and  Israel,  O  glorious  King."  Priest :  "  The  oblation  is  offered 
unto  God  the  Lord  of  all."  R. :  "  It  is  meet  and  just."  The 
priest  says  a  short  silent  prayer,  and  then  as  a  Ghdntd  : 3  "  Worthy 
of  praise  from  every  mouth  ..."  He  mentions  the  "  holy  cher- 
ubim and  spiritual  seraphim,"  then  (kanuna)  :  "shouting  and 
praising  without  ceasing,  and  crying  out  to  another,  and  saying." 
The  choir  sings  :  "  Holy,  holy,  holy  ..."  A  short  prayer  follows, 
and  leads  to  the  "  signing  of  the  mysteries  " ;  then  follows  the 
Epiklesis. 

We  have  come  to  what  is  the  amazing  point  in  the  Nestorian 

1  No  actual  diptychs  (with  names  to  be  filled  in  at  discretion)  appear  to 
be  now  used. 

2  This  is  the  regular  Antiochene  beginning  of  the  anaphora.     VIII  Apost. 
Const,  xii.  4,  etc. 

3  The  Ghdntd  ("  inclination  ")  is  a  prayer  said  in  a  low  voice  (^vcttikcos). 
The  ending  chanted  aloud  (iiccpwvrjaris)  is  called  kdnunq. 


THE   PRESENT  NESTORIAN   CHURCH      155 

rite.  The  liturgy  of  the  Apostles  does  not  contain  the  words  of 
institution.  This  is  naturally  a  grave  scandal  to  the  friends  of 
this  Church.  The  Anglican  editors  of  their  liturgy  have  fitted  in 
here  the  narrative  of  the  Last  Supper  containing  the  words.  It 
interrupts  the  prayer  most  awkwardly.1  It  is  often  said  that  the 
Nestorians  always  recited  the  words  of  institution,  but  did  not 
write  them  in  their  books,  through  excessive  reverence.  This 
does  not  seem  likely.  Their  prayers  from  the  Sanctus  to  the 
Epiklesis  form  a  consecutive  whole  ;  there  is  no  sign  of  anything 
left  out,  and  no  room  for  an  insertion.  It  should,  however,  be 
noted  that  Narse,  in  the  5th  century,  mentions  the  words  of 
institution.2  The  liturgies  of  Nestorius  and  Theodore  have  the 
words  of  institution.  It  would  seem,  then,  that,  no  doubt  because 
of  a  great  insistence  on  the  Epiklesis  as  the  "  form  "  of  consecra- 
tion, they  thought  it  a  matter  of  indifference  whether  the  words 
of  institution  were  said  or  not.  The  Anglicans  teach  their  pupils 
to  say  them  scrupulously ;  but  they  admit  that,  "  unfortunately, 
it  is  not  uncommon  now  for  the  more  ignorant  priests  altogether 
to  omit  this  essential  part  of  the  Sacrament."  3  The  Epiklesis  of 
the  liturgy  of  the  Apostles  is  vague  :  "  And  may  there  come,  O 
my  Lord,  thine  Holy  Spirit  and  rest  upon  this  offering  of  thy 
servants  and  bless  it  and  hallow  it,  that  it  be  to  us,  O  my  Lord, 
for  the  pardon  of  offences  and  the  remission  of  sins,  and  for  the 
great  hope  of  resurrection  from  the  dead,  and  for  new  life  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  with  all  those  who  have  been  well-pleasing 
in  thy  sight."     Certainly,  if  we  look  for  a  categorical  "  form  "  of 

1  Anglican  edition  of  the  liturgies,  p.  16  ;  Brightman  :  Eastern  Liturgies, 
p.  285.     They  take  the  form  of  i  Cor.  xi.  23-25. 

2  Connolly:  Liturgical  Homilies  of  Narsai  (Cambridge,  1909),  p.  17;  cf. 
pp.  83-84. 

3  Maclean  and  Browne :  op.  cit.  p.  257.  The  question  of  validity  with- 
out the  words  of  institution  is  a  dogmatic  one  into  which  I  need  hardly 
enter  here.  Most  Catholic  and  most  Orthodox  theologians  would  un- 
doubtedly deny  it.  On  the  other  hand,  if  one  accepts  the  idea  of  con- 
secration by  the  whole  barahah  (see  The  Mass,  p.  405),  valid  consecration 
without  the  words  of  institution  explicitly  might  perhaps  be  defended. 
One  point  about  the  Anglican  mission  may  be  noted  here.  They  have 
(quite  rightly)  "  tampered  "  with  the  historic  rite  in  this  point,  which  they 
think  essential,  as  they  have  also  by  leaving  out  heretical  names  and  clauses. 
They  can  hardly,  then,  blame  Rome  for  having  done  the  same  in  the  Uniate 
rites,  in  cases  which  we  consider  essential. 


156   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

the  Sacrament,  we  shall  have  difficulty  in  finding  it  in  this  liturgy.1 
Some  prayers  and  psalms,  a  washing  of  hands  and  incensing  lead 
to  a  complicated  fraction  and  commixture.  The  mixture  is  made 
by  dipping.  There  is  a  blessing,  the  Lord's  Prayer  with  an  intro- 
duction, and  the  usual  verse  :  "  For  thine  is  the  kingdom,  etc.," 
and  an  embolism,  an  elevation  with  the  form  :  "  The  holy  things 
to  the  holies  is  fitting  in  perfection."  Then,  while  anthems  are 
sung,  the  clergy  and  people  make  their  Communion.  Normally 
the  two  kinds  are  received  separately  ;  the  celebrant  gives  the 
holy  bread,  the  deacon  the  chalice.  The  forms  of  administration 
are  :  "  The  body  of  our  Lord  to  N.N.2  for  the  pardon  of  offences," 
"  The  precious  blood  for  the  pardon  of  offences,  the  spiritual  feast 
for  everlasting  life  to  N.N.  (as  before)."  Quite  small  children 
receive  Communion,  by  intinction.  The  thanksgiving  consists 
of  one  verse  by  the  deacon  (a  much  shortened  litany)  with  the 
answer  :  "  Glory  be  to  him  for  his  unspeakable  gift,"  a  few  prayers, 
another  kiss  of  peace,  and  now  (in  practice)  the  Communion  of 
the  celebrant  and  deacon.3  There  is  a  final  blessing  (no  formula 
of  dismissal),  and  the  antidoron  (see  p.  150)  called  mkafrdnd  is 
distributed.  So  the  liturgy  ends.4  It  appears  that  most  people 
do  not  wait  for  the  end.  Immediately  after  their  Communion 
they  go  to  the  door  of  the  baptistery,  take  the  mkafrdnd,5  and  go 
home.  Also  they  often  come  late,  so  that  generally  the  lessons 
(except  the  Gospel)  are  not  said  at  all,  and  the  Gospel  is  moved 
from  its  proper  place,  read  and  explained  by  a  homily  just  before 
the  Communion.6  The  Nestorians  do  not  now  reserve  the  Holy 
Eucharist  at  all,  and  have  no  provision  for  Communion  of  the  sick. 
The  Baptism  service  is  a  long  rite  modelled  closely  on  the  holy 

1  The  other  two  rites  have  an  Epiklesis  of  the  usual  Antiochene  or  Byzan- 
tine form.     They  are  quoted  in  Maclean  and  Browne  :   op.  cit.  p.  258. 

2  "The  discreet  priest,"  or  "the  deacon  of  God,"  or  "the  circumspect 
believer." 

3  Maclean  and  Browne  :  op.  cit.  261.  This  is  clearly  a  dislocation  caused 
by  the  fact  that  the  order  of  the  liturgy  contains  no  clear  direction  that  they 
should  communicate  first.  So  their  communion  has  coalesced  with  the 
consumption  of  what  remains  of  the  Sanctissimum  at  the  end. 

4  The  prayers  and  exact  rubrics  will  be  found  in  Brightman  :  Eastern 
Liturgies,  247-305.  From  the  end  of  the  Epiklesis  the  other  two  rites  take 
(with  a  few  special  prayers)  the  Ordo  communis  of  the  normal  liturgy. 

5  Often  the  mkafrdnd  is  not  given  at  all.     Maclean  and  Browne,  p.  260. 

6  lb.  251. 


THE   PRESENT   NESTORIAN   CHURCH      157 

liturgy.  It  has  an  "  Apostle,"  Gospel,  Creed,  Litany,  "  Sursum 
Corda,"  Sanctus,  Epiklesis,  and  so  on.  It  takes  place  after  the 
liturgy ;  many  children  are  baptized  together,  private  baptism  is 
not  allowed.  Soon  after  birth  there  is  a  curious  imitation  of 
baptism  ;  water  is  blessed,  and  the  child  is  washed  in  it.  This  is 
called  "  signing."  Then  it  waits  till  the  next  feast,  when  there 
will  be  a  liturgy  in  the  Church  and,  following  that,  a  general  public 
baptism.  The  child's  name  is  given  at  the  "  signing."  In  the 
Baptism  rite  the  children  are  anointed  all  over  with  olive  oil  (oil 
of  the  catechumens) .  The  Nestorians  have  a  holy  oil  believed  to 
come  from  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  like  the  holy  leaven.  This  is 
kept  in  the  sanctuary,  renewed  as  the  leaven  is,  and  a  small 
portion  of  it  is  mixed  with  the  oil  of  the  catechumens.  At  the 
actual  moment  of  baptism  the  child  is  held  facing  the  east  over 
the  font ;  the  priest  dips  it  three  times,  saying :  "  N.  is  baptized 
in  the  name  of  the  Father  (R. :  Amen),  in  the  name  of  the  Son 
(Amen),  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  ever  (Amen)."  It  is 
confirmed  at  once  by  laying-on  the  right  hand.  No  chrism  or 
other  oil  is  now  used  for  Confirmation.1 

The  ordination  of  clerks  below  the  rank  of  deacon  2  is  now 
obsolete.  Deacons,  priests,  and  bishops  are  ordained  by  laying- 
on  the  right  hand,  with  a  suitable  form.  Several  other  bishops 
assist  the  Patriarch  or  Metropolitan  in  ordaining  a  bishop  ;  they 
lay  their  hands  on  his  side.  The  Nestorians  have  the  rite  of 
vesting  the  subject  during  the  ordination  service  ;  but  they  do  not 
appear  to  have  an  anointing.  We  have  seen  that  they  have  what 
seem  to  be  ordination  forms  for  making  a  deacon  an  archdeacon, 
a  bishop  a  Patriarch,  and  so  on  (pp.  134-135). 3     In  the  marriage 

1  It  appears  that  once  oil  was  used  for  Confirmation,  as  everywhere  else 
in  Christendom.  See  G.  Bickell  :  Das  Sakr.  der  Firmnng  bei  den  Nest. 
(Zt.f.  Kath.  Theol.  1877,  85-117);  Bib.  Or.  hi.  (i),  576.  Further  details 
of  the  Baptism  service  are  given  by  Maclean  and  Browne  :  op.  cit.  267-279  ; 
the  whole  rite  by  Badger  :  op.  cit.  ii.  195-214;  also  by  G.  Diettrich  :  Die 
nestorianische  Taufliturgie  (Giessen,  1903),  who  ascribes  its  composition  to 
the  Katholikos  Yeshu'-yab  III  (652-661),  holds  it  to  be  the  oldest  extant 
form  in  Christendom,  and  illustrates  it  with  interesting  notes.  Denzinger  : 
Ritus  Orientalium  (Wiirzburg,  1863),  i.  364-383. 

2  Badger  gives  the  forms  (with  imposition  of  the  bishop's  right  hand)  for 
readers  and  subdeacons  ;   ii.  322-325. 

3  Badger,  ii .  322-350,  gives  the  services.     Denzinger  :  op.  cit.  ii.  226-274. 


158   THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

service  they  crown  the  spouses  with  threads  of  red,  blue,  and  white, 
and  have  several  curious  customs.1  They  have  far-reaching  im- 
pediments of  consanguinity  and  affinity,2  but  allow  divorce  for 
many  reasons.3  Their  burial  service  is  very  long.  It  differs  for 
clergy  and  laity.  They  sing  anthems  and  psalms  (special  ones  for 
all  manner  of  specialcases — a  man  murdered,  drowned,  betrothed, 
etc.),. and  have  many  prayers  for  the  dead.  They  offer  the  holy 
liturgy  for  the  repose  of  their  souls.4 

And  here  we  take  leave  of  the  pathetic  little  Church.  The 
curious  customs,  superstitions,  popular  traditions  of  the  modern 
Nestorians  do  not  concern  the  purpose  of  this  book.  An  account  of 
them  may  be  read  in  the  work  of  Dean  Maclean 5  and  Mr.  Browne, 
to  which  I  am  already  considerably  indebted.6  The  Nestorians 
have  a  wonderful  history.  It  is  strange  to  realize  that  out  there, 
among  Kurds  and  Yazldis,  there  still  exists  a  remnant  of  that 
ancient  Church,  mother  of  the  great  army  of  martyrs  whose 
glorious  blood  hallowed  the  Persian  soil,  the  Church  which  spread 
the  Christian  name  deep  into  the  heart  of  China.  That  they  have 
kept  the  Christian  faith  for  thirteen  centuries  of  tragic  isolation 
gives  them  a  right  to  all  our  respect  and  affection.  They,  too,  are 
our  brothers  and  sheep  of  Christ,  though  they  are  imprisoned  in 
the  fold  of  Nestorius.  Our  last  hope  for  them  is  that  they 
may  come  out  of  that  other  fold  back  to  the  one  flock.  Only,  to 
do  that  they  must  accept  Ephesus  and  call  the  mother  of  their 
Lord  by  her  right  name.  There  are  many  tragedies  in  the  long 
story  of  the  people  of  Christ ;  not  the  least  of  them  is  that  Bar 
Sauma  of  Edessa  once  quarrelled  with  his  bishop  Rabbula. 


Summary 

This  chapter  has  described  the  Nestorian  Church  as  it  exists 
to-day.     It  was  in  a  sense  rediscovered  by  Western  Europe  in 

1  Maclean  and  Browne:  op.  cit.  142-159;  Badger  gives  the  rite,  ii.  244- 
281.  2  The  table  in  Badger,  ii.  277. 

3  Maclean  and  Browne,  p.  158. 

4  For  funeral  rites  see  Badger,  ii.  282-321  ;    Maclean  and  Browne,  279- 
289  ;   Kurds  and  Christians,  227-232. 

5  Now  Bishop  of  Moray,  Ross  and  Caithness. 

6  The  Catholicos  of  the  East  and  his  People,  London,  S.P.C.K.,  1892. 


THE   PRESENT   NESTORIAN  CHURCH      159 

the  19th  century,  first  by  explorers  who  went  to  Mesopotamia  to 
find  Assyrian  remains.  Since  then  it  has  been  the  object  of  great 
interest  and  of  many  missionary  expeditions.  Besides  the  Catholic 
missions,  which  have  been  there  for  a  long  time  and  belong  to  a 
different  category,  the  chief  of  these  are  the  American  Presby- 
terian mission  at  Urmi  and  the  Anglican  mission  at  Amadia. 
The  Orthodox  Russians,  too,  have  a  mission  here.  There  are 
now  about  100,000  Nestorians  living  in  Kurdistan  and  around 
Lake  Urmi  on  either  side  of  the  Turkish-Persian  frontier.  Their 
religious  (and  to  a  great  extent  civil)  head  is  the  Patriarch  and 
Katholikos,  who  always  takes  the  name  Mar  Shim'un.  Under 
him  are  one  Metropolitan  and  ten  bishops.  The  Patriarchal  and 
Episcopal  lines  are  now  practically  hereditary.  They  have  a 
hierarchy  of  the  usual  Eastern  type,  but  do  not  now  in  practice 
ordain  anyone  below  the  rank  of  deacon.  Priests  and  deacons 
have  no  law  of  celibacy  at  all.  There  are  a  few  monks  and  nuns, 
no  monasteries.  Their  faith  differs  from  ours  in  the  great  point 
of  our  Lord's  person.  They  have  a  kind  of  iconoclasm,  except 
that  they  greatly  reverence  the  holy  Cross.  Naturally  they  reject 
the  primacy  of  the  Pope  ;  their  attitude  about  the  Filioque  seems 
undetermined.  They  use  the  old  Eastern  Syrian  rite  in  classical 
Syriac.  Their  divine  office  is  now  practically  reduced  to  morning 
and  evening  prayer.  They  have  three  forms  of  liturgy,  the 
normal  one  "  of  the  Holy  Apostles,"  and  supplementary  ana- 
phoras of  Theodore  and  of  Nestorius  (this,  apparently  a  version 
of  the  old  Byzantine  rite)  used  on  a  few  days.  The  most  curious 
points  in  their  rite  are  that  they  begin  the  liturgy  actually  by 
making  and  baking  the  bread,  their  curious  superstition  about  the 
"  holy  leaven  "  which  they  mix  therewith,  and,  strangest  of  all, 
that  their  normal  liturgy  does  not  contain  the  words  of  institution. 


PART  II 

THE    COPTS 


ii 


We  have  already  noted  that  all  other  Lesser  Eastern  Churches 
are  Monophysite.  An  outline  of  the  great  Monophysite  con- 
troversy will  therefore  introduce  the  history  of  the  Copts,  Abys- 
sinians,  Jacobites,  Malabar  Christians  and  Armenians. 


CHAPTER   VI 


MONOPHYSISM 


Now  we  go  back  to  the  5th  century  and  take  up  again  the  story 
of  the  great  Christological  controversy,  of  which  the  first  part  is 
the  Council  of  Ephesus  and  the  condemnation  of  Nestorius.  The 
second  part  is  Monophysism.  But  it  is  all  one  story.  Mono- 
physism,  the  extreme  opposite  of  Nestorianism,  begins  merely 
as  an  ardent  opposition  to  that  heresy.  The  first  Monophysites 
were  the  men  who  cried  loudest  for  the  faith  of  Ephesus  and  of 
Cyril.  It  is  difficult  to  say  exactly  when  they  begin.  They  exist 
certainly  before  the  Nestorian  quarrel  is  settled.  The  Mono- 
physite  sects  come  out  (on  the  other  side)  of  the  same  turmoil 
which  produced  the  Nestorians.  They  are  vastly  more  important. 
Nestorianism  was  soon  crushed,  expelled  from  the  empire,  which 
it  never  again  troubled  ;  it  became  one  sect  in  Persia.  Mono- 
physism made  an  appalling  disturbance  throughout  the  whole 
Eastern  Empire  for  about  two  centuries,,  and  then  settled  down  in 
not  one  but  four  great  national  Churches.  All  the  lesser  schis- 
matical  Eastern  Churches,  except  the  one  we  have  discussed,  are 
Monophysite. 

i.  The  First  Monophysites 

There  is  no  one  man  who  stands  out  as  the  founder  of  Mono- 
physism, as  Nestorius  is  the  founder  of  his  heresy.  This  accounts 
for  the  different  kinds  of  name  the  two  great  Christological  errors 
bear.   Nestorianism  is  called  after  a  man.  Monophysism  is  a  defini- 

163 


164        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

tion  of  the  heretical  idea.1  It  is  true  that  it  has  often  been  called 
Eutychianism  (a  Monophysite  being  a  "  Eutychian ")  after 
Eutyches  (p.  167).  But  he  was  only  one  of  many  Monophysites, 
not  by  any  means  the  inventor  of  the  theory  or  leader  of  the 
party.2  He  acquired  some  fame  by  bringing  the  heresy  to  or 
by  agitating  for  it  at  Constantinople,  but  he  was  not  really  its 
founder. 

Monophysism,  then,  is  simply  the  extreme  opposite  of  Nestorian- 
ism.  As  soon  as  Nestorius  began  to  divide  Christ  into  two  persons, 
there  were  among  his  opponents  those  who  insisted  on  the  unity 
of  our  Lord  to  such  a  degree  that  they  confused  his  humanity 
with  his  divinity  as  one  thing.  They  declared  him  so  much  one 
person  that  he  had  but  one  nature.  In  him  the  humanity  was 
absorbed  in  the  divinity,  as  a  drop  of  wine  would  be  in  an  ocean  of 
water.  There  is  nothing  to  distinguish  in  Christ ;  in  all  things, 
personality,  hypostasis,  even  nature  (<f>v<ris),  he  is  one.  But 
then  the  more  moderate  people  began  to  see  a  danger  on  that 
side  too.  If  in  Christ  the  humanity  were  absorbed  in  the 
divinity,  then  he  would  have  no  real  human  nature,  would  not 
really  be  man.  These  vehement  opponents  of  Nestorius  were 
falling  into  the  old  Apollinarist  heresy  and  so  justifying  the 
constant  accusation  of  Nestorians  ;  3  they  were  becoming  Docetes 
— the  still  older  heresy  which  made  our  Lord's  humanity,  his  birth, 
life,  and  death,  a  mere  appearance  and  a  useless  mystification. 
As  soon  as  that  was  realized,  as  soon  as  the  extreme  deniers  of 
Nestorianism  began  really  to  maintain  this  idea,  Monophysism  had 
begun.4     It  was  to  have  a  long  and  stormy  career. 

1  Moio<pvaicrp.6s,  fiouo^voriTrjs,  from  /uopr]  (fivcris,  "  one  nature." 

2  If  it  were  necessary  to  name  one  man  as  leader  it  would  be  rather 
Dioscor  of  Alexandria  (p.  165). 

3  Throughout  this  controversy  the  Nestorians  accused  all  their  opponents 
of  being  Apollinarists  (see  p.  59). 

4  Both  the  opposed  heresies  admitted  the  same  false  premise,  that  person 
(vtt 6 Gravis)  and  nature  ((pvais)  are  the  same  thing.  Nestorians  said  that 
our  Lord  has  two  natures,  therefore  he  is  two  persons  ;  Monophysites 
answered  that  he  is  certainly  one  person,  therefore  he  has  one  nature. 
Both  antecedents  are  right ;  the  consequents,  assuming  the  false  supposi- 
tion, are  wrong.  The  good  of  these  heresies  is  that  the  Church  by  them 
was  obliged  to  realize  more  clearly  the  simple  truth  she  had  always  held 
(that  one  Jesus  Christ  is  both  God  and  man),  and  so  to  conceive  the  essential 
difference  between  nature  and  person. 


MONOPHYSISM  165 

The  first  home  of  Monophysism  was  Egypt ;  and  the  Mono- 
physites  always  maintained  that  they  were  merely  upholding  the 
teaching  of  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  against  Nestorius.  If  they 
admitted  a  "  founder  "  at  all,  they  claimed  Cyril  as  the  founder  of 
their  school.1  The  phrase  quoted  by  Cyril,  "  one  nature  incarnate 
of  the  Word  of  God,"  became  their  watchword.2  Then,  when  Cyril 
made  peace  with  John  of  Antioch  (p.  74),  some  of  his  partisans 
accused  him  of  compromising  with  Nestorianism.  These  are  the 
first  Monophysites.  Cyril  died  in  444,  just  before  the  Mono- 
physite  quarrel  broke  out.  He  was  succeeded  by  his  archdeacon 
Dioscor,3  who  had  accompanied  him  to  Ephesus.  As  Patriarch  of 
Alexan  dria,Dioscor  becomes  the  real  head  of  the  Monophysite  party. 
During  Cyril's  lifetime  he  had  enjoyed  a  good  reputation ;  but  from 
the  moment  he  became  Patriarch  and  leader  of  the  Monophysites 
he  is  represented  as  a  typical  ecclesiastical  villain.  Although  he 
owed  everything  to  Cyril,  he  began  his  reign  by  despoiling  and 
persecuting  Cyril's  heirs.  He  exacted  so  much  money  from  the 
people  that  his  pastoral  visitations  became  a  terror  throughout 
Egypt ;  people  fled  before  him  and  hid  their  property,  as  they 
would  before  a  hostile  army.  He  maltreated  all  the  clergy 
ordained  by  his  predecessor.  He  led  a  notoriously  immoral  life, 
and  was  accompanied  everywhere  by  a  mistress  named  Pan- 
sophia.4  It  is  true  that  these  are  accusations  made  by  his  enemies, 
so  that  they  should  be  received  with  a  certain  amount  of  caution. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  seems  to  be  unanimous  contemporary 
authority  describing  him  as  a  deplorable  person  from  every  point 
of  view.  And  there  is  no  doubt  at  all  that  he  was  a  heresiarch 
and  quite  unscrupulous  in  fighting  for  his  heresy. 

Meanwhile,  there  was  still  an  "  Eastern "  party  in  Syria, 
disciples  of  the  Antiochene  school,  inheritors  of  the  ideas  of 
Diodore  of  Tarsus  and  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  (pp.  59-60), 
the  friends  of  John  of  Antioch.    These  are  not  Nestorians — at 

1  Really,  of  course,  they  said  that  they  were  defending  the  teaching  of 
the  gospels  (as  defended  by  Cyril) — which  is  the  attitude  of  all  heretics. 

2  They  quoted  "  the  Word  was  made  flesh  "  too  constantly,  understand- 
ing this  as  meaning  identity  of  nature. 

3  Ai6(TKopos,  Dioscorus. 

4  See  the  accusations  against  Dioscor  made  by  his  clergy  at  the  Ihird 
session  of  Chalcedon.    Hefele-Leclercq :  Histoire  des  Conciles,  ii.  (2),  691   699 


166        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

least,  most  of  them  are  not.  They  accepted  the  terms  of  re- 
conciliation between  John  and  Cyril,  they  tempered  the  ideas 
of  Diodore  and  Theodore,  recognized  the  Council  of  Ephesus, 
and  no  longer  defended  Nestorius.  But  they  were  the  natural 
opponents  of  the  first  Monophysites.  John  of  Antioch  died  in  441 
or  442.  He  was  succeeded  by  his  nephew  Domnus  x  II  (441-448), 
who  shared  all  his  ideas.  In  the  vast  Antiochene  Patriarchate 
Ibas  was  now  Bishop  of  Edessa  (435-457), 2  and  Theodoret  Bishop 
of  Cyrus  (423-458)  .3  Theodoret  was  the  chief  theologian  o  that 
side.  He  had  been  a  friend  and  partisan  of  Nestorius,  an  active 
opponent  of  Cyril.  But  about  the  year  435  he  joined  the  union 
between  his  Patriarch  (John)  and  Cyril ;  since  then  he  remained 
a  Catholic.  He  was  naturally  a  great  enemy  of  Dioscor  and  the 
Monophysites.  They  deposed  him  in  their  Robber-Synod  (449 ; 
see  p.  77).  At  Chalcedon  (451)  he  made  a  perfectly  correct 
profession  of  faith,  condemning  Nestorius  as  well  as  the  opposite 
heresy,  was  restored  to  his  see,  and  died  in  peace  in  457. 
Theodoret  succeeded  the  older  masters  as  the  leader  of  the 
Antiochene  school  of  theology  ;  he  is  also  famous  as  a  great 
defender  of  the  Roman  primacy.4  His  Patriarch,  Domnus,  had 
great  confidence  in  him.  Proclus  succeeded  Maximian  (p.  65)  as 
Bishop5  of  Constantinople  (434-447).  He  was  on  good  terms 
with  the  Eastern  bishops,  and  leaned  towards  their  views.  But 
already  he  began  to  usurp  Patriarchal  jurisdiction  in  Illyricum 
and  Asia  Minor,6  so  that  Dioscor,  naturally  wishing  to  disturb  the 
good  relations  between  the  capital  and  his  enemies  in  the  East, 
writes  to  the  Easterns  that  by  allowing  this  they  betray  the  rights 
of  Antioch  and  Alexandria.7 

1  A6flV05 

2  See  pp.  76-77.     Ibas  must  be  counted  as  very  nearly  a  Nestorian. 

3  Kyrros  (Kvppos),  a  little  town  in  Syria,  near  the  Euphrates,  two  days 
from  Antioch. 

4  See  his  appeal  to  Pope  Leo  I,  when  he  was  deposed  by  the  Robber- 
Synod  (quoted  in  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  p.  56).  The  Monophysites  always 
hated  him.  His  writings  were  condemned  as  the  second  of  the  Three 
Chapters,  to  please  them  (see  p.  202). 

5  It  is  a  question  how  far  one  can  speak  of  a  Patriarch  of  Constantinople 
before  Chalcedon. 

6  This  is  part  of  the  gradual  advance  of  Constantinople  towards  the 
second  place  in  Christendom  (Orth.  Eastern  Church,  pp.  28-47). 

»  Theodoret :   Ep.  86  (P.G.  lxxxiii.  1280). 


MONOPHYSISM  167 

The  trouble  began  with  the  affair  of  Eutyches,1  archimandrite 
of  a  great  monastery  just  outside  the  walls  of  Constantinople. 
Eutyches  was  known  as  an  ardent  opponent  of  Nestorianism.  He 
had  distinguished  himself  on  the  side  of  St.  Cyril  at  Ephesus.2 
He  was  also  a  person  of  considerable  importance ;  in  his  monastery 
he  ruled  over  three  hundred  monks.  He  was  a  kind  of  leader  of 
Byzantine  monasticism  in  his  time,  known  and  respected  by  all 
the  empire.  He  was  also  godfather,  spiritual  director  and 
intimate  friend  of  the  Grand  Chamberlain  and  Chief  Eunuch 
Chrysaphios,  leading  minister  of  the  Emperor  Theodosius  II 
(408-450).  Eutyches  conceived  the  idea  of  perfecting  the  work 
of  the  Council  of  Ephesus.  Nestorianism,  he  thought,  was  not 
yet  dead.  It  lived  still  in  that  suspicious  Eastern  school.  In 
this  enterprise  he  could  count  on  the  support  of  Egypt  and  the 
Egyptian  Patriarch,  besides  that  of  his  friends  at  court.  So  he 
began  preaching  what  purported  to  be  a  crushing  attack  on 
Nestorianism. 

He  went  far  beyond  St.  Cyril.  The  basis  of  the  Catholic 
position  was  Cyril's  agreement  with  John  of  Antioch  in  433 
(p.  73).  Cyril  had  then  accepted  John's  profession  of  faith 
which  defended  "  the  union  of  two  natures  "  3  in  our  Lord  ;  he 
himself  had  written  in  his  famous  letter  of  union  (Lcetentur  cceli)  : 
"  Therefore  Jesus  Christ  is  one,  although  the  difference  of  natures, 
indelibly  united,  may  not  be  ignored."  4  Eutyches  apparently 
thought  this  a  concession  to  John  and  the  "  Easterns  "  which 
should  now  be  revoked.  His  theory  was  a  complete  fusion  and 
identification  of  the  natures  in  Christ.  A  result  of  this  idea  was 
that  he  said  plainly  that  our  Lord  was  not  "  consubstantial  " 
with  other  men,  had  not  the  same  nature  as  we  have.  So  here 
his  heresy  is  patent.  This  flatly  contradicts  Scripture  :  5  our 
Lord  would  not  really  be  man.     But  Eutyches  went  beyond  what 

1  EVTV\7}S. 

2  Hefele-Leclercq  :  op.  cit.  ii.  (i),  p.  513  (Dom  Leclercq's  note)  ;  Hefele 
himself  doubts  whether  Eutyches  was  actually  at  Ephesus  (ib.  p.  514). 

3  Swo  yap  <pv<Tfo>v  evwais  ye-)oi>6.  See  the  letter  in  Hefele-Leclercq  :  op.  cit. 
ii.  (1),  p.  396. 

4  Such  expressions  as  this  and  the  whole  text  of  the  letter  show  that 
St.  Cyril  was  not  a  Monophysite.     See  above,  p.  73. 

5  E.g.  Heb.  iv.  15  ;    Rom.  v.  15  ;    1  Tim.  ii.  5. 


i68        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

became  later  the  Monophysite  creed.  This  is  of  great  importance. 
Most  modern  Monophysites  (e.g.  the  Armenians)  will  deny  that 
they  hold  Eutyches'  doctrine.  They  are  generally  as  ready  to 
condemn  him  as  we  are.  People  think  that  this  proves  them  to  be 
innocent  of  the  heresy  with  which  they  are  charged.  It  does  not 
do  so  at  all.  A  man  may  be  as  pure  a  Monophysite  as  was 
Dioscor,  and  may  yet  disagree  with  Eutyches  on  several  points. 
For  he  evolved  the  extraordinary  idea  that  our  Lord  has  two 
natures  before  the  hypostatic  union,  but  that  then  (presumably  at 
his  incarnation)  these  two  natures  were  fused  into  one.1  There 
are  other  altogether  wild  ideas  in  Eutyches's  system.  Christ's 
body  was  not  formed  of  his  mother.  It  was  created  by  the  Logos 
long  before  his  birth  ;  the  Logos  assumed  this  body,  fusing  it  with 
the  Divinity,  in  the  womb  of  the  blessed  Virgin.  She  was  thus 
only  the  channel  through  which  her  so-called  son  passed.2  Thus 
Eutyches  arrived  at  a  curious  conclusion.  Starting  as  the  great 
champion  of  Ephesine  doctrine,  of  which  the  dogma  that  Mary  is 
Mother  of  God  is  the  very  essence,  he  came  to  a  conclusion  which 
(were  he  logical)  denied  that  dogma.  A  channel  through  which 
a  totally  disconnected  being  passes,  a  person  who  is  merely  the 
place  in  which  a  pre-existent  body  is  combined  with  the  eternal 
nature  of  that  being,  is  in  no  possible  sense  his  mother.3 

Now,  much  of  this  goes  far  beyond  mere  Monophysism.  A 
Monophysite  is  a  man  who  believes  in  the  identity  of  the  human 
nature  and  the  Divine  nature  in  Christ.4  It  is  quite  possible  to 
hold  this  heresy  without  accepting  Eutyches'  further  wild  theories 
about  a  pre-existing  body  of  Christ,  and  so  on.  Hence,  almost 
from  the  beginning  of  the  dispute  many  Monophysites  were  quite 

1  St.  Leo  I  points  out  that  the  exact  contrary  is  true.  "  Eutyches  says  • 
I  confess  that  our  Lord  was  in  two  natures  before  their  union  ;  but  after 
the  union  I  confess  one  nature  ...  he  says  that  the  only-begotten  Son 
of  God  had  two  natures  before  the  incarnation,  as  impiously  as  he  wickedly 
asserts  one  nature  in  him  after  the  Word  had  become  flesh."  Ep.  xxviii. 
cap.  6  (P.L.  liv.  777). 

2  This  revives  a  very  common  idea  of  the  old  Docetes  ;  see  Docetism  in 
Dr.  J.  Hastings'  Encyclopedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics  (Edinburgh:  T.  &  T. 
Clark,  1911),  iv.  832-835. 

3  A  statement  of  Eutyches'  strange  system  will  be  found  in  Hefele-Leclercq: 
op.  cit.  ii.  (1),  p.  515. 

4  Practically,  as  we  shall  see,  a  Monophysite  is  a  man  who  rejects  the 
dogmatic  decree  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon. 


MONOPHYSISM  169 

ready  to  throw  Eutyches  overboard.  We  must  remember  that  a 
man  or  a  national  Church  is  by  no  means  proved  innocent  of 
Monophysism  because  of  a  declaration  against  Eutyches.1 

As  soon  as  the  Archimandrite  of  the  great  Byzantine  laura 
began  to  propagate  these  novel  ideas  he  found  indignant  oppo- 
nents, naturally  first  among  the  "  Eastern  "  theologians.  They 
had  given  up  Nestorianism,  they  accepted  the  union  of  433 
between  Antioch  and  Alexandria  ;  but  they  were  not  prepared 
to  admit  the  extremest  form  of  anti-Nestorianism.  It  was  one 
thing  to  acknowledge  our  Lord  as  one  person,  in  the  strictest 
sense  ;  it  was  quite  another  to  conceive  his  human  nature  so  lost 
that  he  would  not  be  a  man  at  all.  The  Easterns  were  quite 
right.  Monophysism  is  a  much  worse  heresy  than  Nestorianism. 
Of  the  two  errors  it  is  less  harmful  to  conceive  our  Lord  as  a  moral 
union  between  two  hypostases  than  to  deny  that  he  was  really 
man  at  all.  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  in  447  published  a  dialogue  which 
he  called  The  Beggar,  or  the  many-shaped  one.2  In  this,  without 
naming  Eutyches,  he  attacks  the  new  heresy.  The  title  means 
that  these  Monophysites  are  people  who  beg  their  ideas  from  many 
old  heretics,  from  Gnostics,  Docetes,  Apollinarists.  The  book  is 
in  the  form  of  three  dialogues  between  the  "  Beggar  "  and  an 
orthodox  Christian,  who,  of  course,  confutes  all  the  beggar's 
arguments  and  exposes  the  viciousness  of  his  theory.  The 
parties  were  now  formed.  It  is  no  longer  a  question  of  the 
orthodox  who  defend  Christ's  oneness  against  Nestorians,  but  of 
orthodox  who  defend  his  real  human  nature  against  Monophysites. 
The  Egyptians,  who  see  in  Eutyches  a  defender  of  the  teaching  of 
Cyril  and  Ephesus,  are  for  him  ;  the  Eastern  (Syrian)  school  is  for 
Theodoret. 

Meanwhile  Proclus  of  Constantinople  was  dead  (447),  and 
was  succeeded  by  Flavian  (447-449).  This  Flavian  is  the 
hero  of  the  Catholic  side  in  the  Eastern  Empire.  He  was  not  a 
man  of  any  great  parts  ;  but  he  knew  enough  theology  to  under- 

1  For  this  reason  it  is  convenient  and  not  uncommon  to  distinguish  between 
two  heresies,  Eutychianism  (meaning  the  acceptance  of  all  Eutyches'  ideas), 
and  Monophysism  (meaning  the  assertion  of  one  nature  in  Christ  and  the 
rejection  of  the  Faith  of  Chalcedon).  Hefele  makes  this  distinction  (ed.  cit. 
ii.  (2),  857-858). 

2  'Epaviar}]5  t)toi  wo\v/j.op4>os    (P.G.  lxjpdii.  27-336). 


170   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

stand  that  a  system  which  denied  our  Lord's  humanity  is  intoler- 
able. He  was  throughout  a  firm  champion  of  the  faith  against 
the  new  heresy,  and  he  died  a  martyr  for  that  faith.  Meanwhile 
old  Nestorius  from  his  place  of  exile  watched  this  struggle,  saw 
(not  unnaturally)  in  Flavian  the  man  who  would  rehabilitate  his 
own  ideas,  and  conceived  the  struggle  between  Flavian  and  Dioscor 
as  merely  a  repetition  of  the  fight  between  himself  and  Cyril. 

The  man  who  comes  out  best  in  the  whole  Monophysite  contro- 
versy is  the  Pope  of  Rome.  It  has  often  happened  in  the  story  of 
a  great  heresy  that  the  earthly  head  of  the  Church  was  not  the 
leading  champion  of  her  faith.  Popes  have  not  always  been  the 
greatest  theologians  of  their  time.  Some  other  bishop  (Athan- 
asius,  Cyril,  Augustine)  has  led  the  attack  against  the  new 
heresy  and  the  Pope  has  approved,  giving  to  their  side  the 
enormous  weight  of  his  authority.  But  this  time  it  was  not  so. 
When  Monophysism  began  the  chair  of  St.  Peter  was  occupied  by 
one  of  the  very  greatest  of  his  successors,  Leo  I,  called  the  Great 
(440-461).  St.  Leo  was  a  skilled  theologian.  We  count  him  one 
of  the  chief  Latin  Fathers  of  the  Church.  He  was  perfectly  com- 
petent to  understand  the  danger  of  Eutyches's  heresy  ;  through- 
out the  first  period  of  Monophysism  (till  he  died  in  461)  he  is  to 
the  Catholic  side  what  Athanasius  had  been  in  Arian  times. 

Domnus  of  Antioch  took  up  the  cause  of  Theodoret.1  Mean- 
while some  of  Eutyches'  monks  went  to  Alexandria  to  ensure  the 
support  of  Dioscor.  As  long  as  Theodosius  II  lived,  the  court  was 
for  the  Monophysites.  Very  likely  the  Emperor  thought  that 
Domnus  and  Theodoret  were  trying  to  revive  Nestorianism  ;  and 
Eutyches  had  the  ear  of  the  Chief  Chamberlain  Chrysaphios.  So 
Theodosius  wrote  an  angry  letter  back  to  Domnus  telling  him 
that  all  Nestorians  must  be  deposed  and  excommunicated. 
Eutyches  wrote  to  Pope  Leo,  warning  him  against  this  "  Eastern  " 
backsliding  into  Nestorianism.  The  Pope  answered  cautiously, 
refusing  to  take  any  steps  till  he  had  heard  more  of  the  matter.2 
Then  Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum  3  brought  the  matter  up  at  a  meeting 

1  Hefele-Leclercq  :   Hist,  des  Cone.  ii.  (1),  509. 

2  Ep.  xx.  (P.L.  liv.  713). 

3  Eusebius  was  in  no  way  suspect  of  Nestorianism.  He  had  been  one  of 
the  first  opponents  of  Nestorius  and  a  great  defender  of  the  Theot6kos. 
Dorylaeum  (AopvXcuof)  is  in  Phrygia. 


MONOPHYSISM  171 

of  the  Synod  of  Constantinople  l  in  November  44s.2  Flavian  was 
at  first  not  very  willing  to  act  in  the  matter  ;  but  Eusebius 
insisted.  So  Eutyches  was  summoned,  refused  to  leave  his 
monastery,  and  got  up  a  (heretical)  declaration  of  his  faith,  which 
was  signed  by  a  great  number  of  his  monks.  After  a  great  deal  of 
discussion  he  at  last  came  and  was  heard.  He  was  found  guilty 
of  Apollinarism  and  Valentinianism,3  deposed  and  excommuni- 
cated. The  chief  offence  on  his  part  was  that  he  taught  that 
Christ  is  not  "  of  the  same  nature  as  we  are/'  4  which  shows  that 
his  judges  well  understood  the  real  issue  from  the  first.  So  this 
synod  at  Constantinople  in  448  adds  the  parallel  clause  to  what 
Nicaea  had  declared  in  325.  Then,  against  the  Arians,  the  Church 
had  declared  our  Lord  to  be  consubstantial  to  the  Father  ;  in  this 
controversy  she  declared,  against  the  Monophysites,  that  he  is 
consubstantial  to  us  men.  In  other  words,  our  Saviour  is  truly 
God  and  truly  man,  which  is  the  faith  of  the  gospels.  The 
synod  in  condemning  Eutyches  carefully  explained  that  the  faith 
of  St.  Cyril  and  of  Ephesus  was  not  to  be  questioned.5 

2.  The  Robber-Synod  of  Ephesus  (449) 

Eutyches  was  not  prepared  to  submit  to  his  condemnation. 
Instead  he  wrote  letters  justifying  his  ideas  to  the  Pope  ; 6  to  St. 
Peter  Chrysologus  (f  c.  450),  Archbishop  of  Ravenna,  a  great 
theologian  among  the  Latins ; 7  apparently  also  to  Dioscor  of 
Alexandria  and  his  Egyptian  friends.  These  at  once  took  up  his 
cause  hotly.  So  did  his  friends  at  Court.  The  Emperor  Theo- 
dosius  II  was  entirely  under  the  influence  of  Eutyches'  patron 
Chrysaphios  ;    as  long  as  he  lived  Eutyches  triumphed.     The 

1  This  is  not  a  special  synod  called  together  to  judge  this  case,  but  the 
permanent  council  of  advisers  of  the  Patriarch,  called  ZvvoSos  evd-qaova-a, 
a  regular  institution  of  the  Byzantine  Patriarchate  (Orth.  Eastern  Church, 
p.  31)-  2  Mansi,  vi.  652. 

3  Because  Valentinians  were  Docetes. 

4  ovk  flwov  .  .  .  ojxoovctlov  t]ij7v  (Mansi,  vi.  741). 

5  For  this  Synod  of  448  see  Hefele-Leclercq  :  op.  cit.  ii.  (1),  pp.  518-538. 
Its  acts  are  in  Mansi,  vi.  649-824. 

6  Ep.  Eutychis  ad  Leonem  ;  No.  xxi.  among  St.  Leo's  letters  (P.L.  liv. 
714-717)  ;  also  in  Mansi,  v.  1014-1015. 

7  In  Mansi,  v.  1347. 


172        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Emperor  summoned  a  synod  to  revise  the  judgement  of  Flavian. 
It  was  to  meet  at  Ephesus,  like  the  council  of  431.  The  Pope  was, 
of  course,  invited.  He  could  not  come  (Attila  was  just  then  at 
the  gates  of  Rome)  ;  but  he  sent  legates— Julius,  Bishop  of 
Puteoli,  a  priest  Renatus,  a  deacon  Hilarius,1  and  a  notary 
Dulcitius.  They  brought  letters  to  the  Emperor,  to  Flavian  of 
Constantinople,  to  the  monks  of  the  city,  and  to  the  synod.  St. 
Leo's  letter  to  Flavian  is  the  most  important  document  of  this 
story.  It  is  his  famous  Tome  or  Dogmatic  Letter.2  In  his  other 
letters  he  refers  to  this  one  as  containing  a  plain  statement  of  the 
Catholic  faith.  The  Dogmatic  Letter  of  Leo  I  to  Flavian 
categorically  rejects  Eutyches'  novelties.3  It  states  the  Catholic 
faith  exactly  as  all  Catholics  (and  the  Orthodox  too)  have  learned 
it  in  their  catechism  ;  the  technical  terms  and  language  generally 
are  those  we  still  use.  Our  Lord  is  one  person  having  two  natures, 
of  God  and  of  man.  Each  nature  is  real,  complete,  perfect. 
"  The  property  of  either  nature  and  substance  4  remaining  and 
being  joined  in  one  person,  lowliness  is  assumed  by  majesty, 
weakness  by  might,  mortality  by  the  eternal.  To  pay  the  debt 
of  our  condition  an  inviolable  nature  is  joined  to  a  nature  which 
can  suffer  ;  so  that,  as  befits  our  salvation,  one  and  the  same 
mediator  between  God  and  men,  the  man  Jesus  Christ,  could  die 
in  one  nature,  could  not  die  in  the  other.  Therefore  God  was  born 
in  the  perfect  nature  of  a  true  man,  perfect  in  his  own  (nature), 
perfect  in  ours.  We  say  in  ours,  which  the  Creator  made  in  the 
beginning,. which  he  assumed  to  redeem  it.  .  .  .  Wherefore  he,  who 
remaining  in  the  form  of  God  created  man,  he  the  same  in  the  form 
of  a  servant  was  made  man.  Either  nature  holds  without  defect 
its  properties  ;  as  the  form  of  God  does  not  destroy  the  form  of 
a  servant,  so  the  form  of  a  servant  does  not  lessen  the  form 
of  God."  5 

1  Afterwards  Pope  Hilarius  (461-468). 

2  No.  xxviii.  among  St.  Leo's  letters  (P.L.  liv.  755-781  ;  Mansi,  v.  1366)  ; 
see  Hefele-Leclercq  :    op.  cit.  ii.  (1),  567-580. 

3  The  constant  references  to  Eutyches  in  this  letter  are,  together  with 
the  fact  that  his  condemnation  began  the  great  controversy,  the  reason  why 
he  has  acquired  undeserved  importance  as  the  founder  of  Monophysism. 
Really  his  case  was  only  an  incident  in  the  great  quarrel. 

4  Nature,  substance,  essence  mean  the  same  thing. 
6  P.L.  liv.  763. 


MONOPHYSISM  173 

The  Dogmatic  Letter  of  St.  Leo  became  the  symbol  of  all 
Catholics  throughout  this  quarrel.  It  is  this  which  was  solemnly 
accepted  by  the  fathers  of  Chalcedon  when  they  cried  out/'  Peter 
has  spoken  by  Leo  "  (p.  178).  The  Pope  further  says  that  when 
Eutyches  has  withdrawn  his  error,  the  old  man  is  to  be  treated 
mercifully. 

But  the  last  thing  Eutyches  thought  of  was  to  withdraw  his 
error.  All  the  weight  of  Egypt  under  its  "  ecclesiastical  Pharaoh  " 
was  coming  to  back  up  the  obstinate  monk. 

On  August  8,  449,  Dioscor  opened  the  synod  in  the  great  Church 
of  the  Theot6kos  at  Ephesus,  the  same  church  in  which  the  former 
council  had  been  held.  He  had  arrived  with  twenty  bishops  and 
a  great  crowd  of  parabolani,  sturdy  fellows  armed  with  clubs,  who 
understood  nothing  about  nature  and  person,  but  were  going  to 
brain  anyone  who  annoyed  their  Pharaoh.1  The  Emperor  sent 
Count  Elpidius  and  many  soldiers  to  protect  Eutyches.  This  is, 
then,  the  infamous  "  Robber-Synod  "  2  of  Ephesus.  No  synod 
in  all  Church  history  has  left  such  a  name  for  flagrant  brutality. 
Three  hundred  and  sixty  bishops  attended,  many  of  them  creatures 
of  Dioscor.  The  others  afterwards  (at  Chalcedon)  said  that  they 
had  only  agreed  with  him  in  a  panic  at  his  brutal  violence. 
Dioscor  presided  3  and  made  the  synod  do  all  he  wished.  There 
was  no  pretence  at  a  free  discussion.  The  Emperor  had  com- 
manded the  bishops  to  crush  Flavian  and  restore  Eutyches  ; 
Dioscor  made  them  do  so.  The  synod  lasted  two  days.4  On  the 
first  day  (August  8,  449)  Dioscor  called  for  the  soldiers  ;  they  and 
the  crowd  of  his  parabolani  rushed  into  the  church ;  there  followed 
the  scene  of  wild  disorder  which  gained  for  this  meeting  its  name 
of  a  gang  of  brigands.     Eutyches  was  declared  innocent ;    his 

1  The  Parabolani  (irapafioAcivot,  "  exposers  of  their  own  life  ")  were  a 
corporation  at  Alexandria,  originally  founded  to  nurse  the  sick.  They 
became  a  kind  of  rowdy  bodyguard  of  the  Patriarch  and  a  public  danger 
to  peaceful  citizens.     It  was  the  Parabolani  who  murdered  Hypatia  in  415. 

2  Latrocinium  Ephesinum,  avvodos  \-narpiKri.  It  is  St.  Leo's  name  for 
it  (Ep.  xcv.  2  ;   P.L.  liv.  943),  which  has  become  its  regular  title. 

3  This  was,  of  course,  already  an  offence  against  right  order.  The  Papal 
legates  should  have  presided  ;  see  Duchesne,  Hist.  anc.  de  I'lkglise,  iii.  415, 
n.  1,  for  an  explanation  of  this  anomaly. 

4  This  is  the  usual  theory  (Hefele  :  op.  cit.  ii.  (1)  585  ;  Duchesne  :  op.  cit. 
419).     But  see  Leclercq's  note  (Hefele,  he.  cit.). 


174   THE  LESSER   EASTERN  CHURCHES 

absurd  formula — that  our  Lord  had  two  natures  before  the  hypo- 
static union,  one  after  it — was  approved.  There  were  shouts  and 
cries,  "  Eusebius  (of  Dorylaeum)  to  the  fire  !  Burn  him  alive  ! 
Cut  him  in  half  !  "  The  opponents  of  Eutyches  were  to  be  thrown 
in  the  sea.  The  wretched  bishops  were  driven  about,  threatened, 
struck  ;  Flavian  clung  to  the  altar.  The  soldiers  tore  him  from 
it,  and  so  maltreated  him  that  he  died  a  few  days  afterwards.  The 
Roman  legates  cried  out  their  protest,  "  Contradicitur,"  then 
left  the  tumult  in  disgust.  Dioscor  spared  no  violence  to  the 
trembling  bishops.  Terrified  for  their  lives,  they  signed  the  acts 
condemning  and  deposing  Flavian,  restoring  Eutyches.  On  August 
22  a  second  session  was  held,  in  which  Domnus  of  Antioch, 
Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  and  a  number  of  Eastern  bishops  were  deposed. 
Flavian  and  the  legates  were  not  present  at  this  second  session. 
One  of  the  legates,  Hilary,  later  (as  Pope)  built  a  chapel  in  the 
Lateran  basilica  as  a  votive-offering  that  he  had  escaped  with  his 
life  from  the  riot  at  Ephesus.1  Then  Dioscor  sent  a  copy  of  the 
acts  to  the  Emperor  ;  Theodosius  approved  them  and  thought  he 
had  settled  the  matter.  Anatolius  (449-458)  was  made  Bishop 
of  Constantinople  in  place  of  Flavian,  and  Maximus  was  set  up 
at  Antioch  instead  of  Domnus.2 

But  Dioscor  had  counted  without  the  Pope.  From  all  sides 
appeals  and  protests  came  to  Rome.  Flavian  had  time  to  appeal 
before  he  died.  Theodoret  sent  a  letter  of  appeal,3  and  the 
legates  who  had  escaped  from  Dioscor 's  violence  came  back  and 
told  Leo  what  had  happened.  St.  Leo  then  held  a  local  synod  4 
and  protested  against  the  Robber-Synod.  Dioscor,  in  answer, 
had  the  impudence  to  pretend  to  excommunicate  the  Pope. 
Referring  to  this,  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  writes  to  Leo  :  "  the 
enemy  like  a  beast  roaring  to  himself  outside  the  fold  .  .  .  had 
stretched  his  madness  even  towards  you,  to  whom  the  care  of  the 

1  The  inscription  over  the  door  of  the  chapel  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist 
may  still  be  read  :  "  Liberatori  suo  beato  Iohanni  euangelistae  Hilarius 
episcopus  famulus  Christi." 

2  The  acts  of  the  Robber-Synod  are  in  Mansi,  vi.  827-870  ;  for  the  whole 
story  see  Hefele-Leclercq  :   Hist,  des  Conciles,  ii.  (1),  pp.  584-606. 

3  This  is  the  famous  letter  which  contains  such  strong  things  about  the 
Primacy  (P.G.  liv.  848-854)  ;   see  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  56. 

4  October  13  or  15,  449  ;   Mansi,  vi.  509  ;   Hefele-Leclercq  ii.  (1),  625. 


MONOPHYSISM  175 

vineyard  was  given  by  the  Saviour  ;  that  is,  as  we  say,  against 
your  Holiness  ;  and  has  conceived  an  excommunication  against 
you,  who  hasten  to  unite  the  body  of  the  Church."  1 


3.  The  Council  of  Chalcedon  (451) 

The  court  was  on  Dioscor's  side  ;  Anatolius,  the  new  Bishop  of 
Constantinople,  was  a  mere  creature  of  Dioscor.2  There  would 
have  been  great  trouble,  no  doubt  a  schism,  between  the  East  and 
Rome  ;  but  that  just  then,  fortunately  for  everyone  but  himself, 
the  Emperor  Theodosius  II  died  (July  28,  450).  His  sister 
Pulcheria  succeeded  him.  She  married  a  soldier  Marcian,  who 
thereby  became  Emperor.3  Marcian  and  Pulcheria  were  con- 
spicuously pious  and  orthodox.  Marcian  at  once  wrote  a  most 
respectful  letter  to  the  Pope,  calling  him  guardian  of  the  faith, 
and  declares  himself  anxious  to  assist  a  great  synod  authorized  by 
Leo.4  He  hopes  that  Leo  himself  will  be  able  to  come  to  it ;  if  not, 
Marcian  will  summon  it  to  some  convenient  place.  It  shall  define 
the  faith  according  to  Leo's  dogmatic  letter  to  Flavian.5  Pul- 
cheria writes  in  the  same  way.  She  too  says  the  synod  is  to  be 
summoned  by  the  Pope's  authority.6  Leo  had  asked  Theodosius 
II  to  summon  a  council ; 7  clearly  they  mean  only  to  carry  out  his 
wish.  Already  in  November  450  Anatolius  of  Constantinople  had 
held  a  local  synod  in  the  presence  of  the  legates  whom  Leo  had  sent 
to  Marcian  at  his  accession  (Abundius  of  Como  and  others) .  In  this 
he  had  formally  accepted  Leo's  dogmatic  letter  and  had  sent  it  to 
be  signed  by  all  Eastern  Metropolitans,8  with  a  condemnation  of 
both  Nestorius  and  Eutyches.  He  also  sent  notice  of  this  to  Leo, 
with  a  protest  of  his  orthodoxy  and  a  demand  to  be  recognized  as 
Flavian's  lawful  successor.  In  spite  of  the  stain  on  his  accession 
(he  was  ordained  by  Dioscor  after  the  murder  of  Flavian),  Leo, 
seeing  him  to  be  not  a  Monophysite,  recognized  him  "  rather  in 

1  P.L.  liv.  954  ;    Orth.  Eastern  Church,  p.  37. 

2  He  had  been  Dioscor's  legate  (apocrisarius)  at  the  capital. 

3  See  the  Catholic  Encyclopedia,  s.v.  "Marcian"  (ix.  644-645). 

4  aov  avQ4vTos.     Ep.  73  among  those  of  St.  Leo  (P.L.  liv.  900). 
6  Ep.  76  (P.L.  liv.  904). 

6  Ep.  77  (P.L.  liv.  906-908).  7  Ep.  44,  3  (P.L.  liv.  826). 

8  Anatolius  is  already  behaving  as  a  Patriarch. 


176        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

mercy  than  in  justice."  x  For  a  time  the  Pope  hoped  to  restore 
peace  without  so  serious  a  step  as  another  great  council.  Moreover, 
the  times  were  bad.  Attila  was  raging  in  the  West,  Geiserich  and  his 
Vandals  were  an  imminent  danger.2  Meanwhile,  however,  Marcian, 
thinking  that  he  was  carrying  out  the  Pope's  wish,3  summoned  all 
the  bishops  of  the  empire  to  a  synod  to  be  opened  at  Nicaea  on 
May  17,  451.  Leo  then,  seeing  what  had  happened,  agreed.  He 
could  not  come  to  the  council  himself  ;  but  he  sent  as  his  legates 
Paschasinus,  Bishop  of  Lilybaeum  in  Sicily,  and  a  priest  named 
Boniface.  The  bishops  came  to  Nicaea,  but  the  Emperor  wrote 
and  told  them  to  wait  till  he  could  join  them  himself :  he  was 
busy  defending  the  empire  against  the  Huns.  They  complained 
of  the  delay  ;  then  he  told  them  to  go  to  Chalcedon,  a  suburb  of 
Constantinople  across  the  Bosphorus  ;  4  there  he  could  attend  to 
the  council  without  leaving  the  capital.5  On  October  8,  451,  the 
bishops  opened  the  council  in  the  Church  of  St.  Euphemia  at 
Chalcedon.  This  synod,  the  fourth  general  Council  of  Church 
history,  which  has  made  the  name  of  that  obscure  suburb  so 
famous,  completed  the  work  begun  at  Ephesus  in  431,  and  finally 
settled  the  question  of  our  Lord's  nature  and  person.  It  is  famous 
for  two  other  things  as  well.  First  Chalcedon,  the  largest  synod 
of  antiquity,  is  also  the  most  pronounced  in  its  recognition  of  the 
Pope's  primacy.  Nothing  could  exceed  the  plainness  with  which 
these  fathers  recognize  the  Pope  as  supreme  bishop  and  visible 
head  of  the  whole  Church,  or  of  their  acknowledgement  that  his 
confirmation  is  necessary  to  give  authority  to  all  they  do.6 
Secondly,  it  was  this  Council  which,  in  its  famous  28th  Canon, 
made  Constantinople  into  a  Patriarchate,  giving  it  the  second 

1  Ep.  Leonis  104  ad  Marcianum  :  "  Nos  vestrae  fidei  et  inter ventionis 
habentes  intuitum,  cum  secundum  suae  consecrationis  auctores  eius  initia 
titubarent,  benigniores  circa  eum  quam  iustiores  esse  voluimus.  .  .  . 
Vestrae  pietatis  auxilio  et  mei  favoris  assensu  episcopatum  tantae  urbis 
obtinuit  "  (P.L.  iiv.  995). 

2  See  Leo's  letters  to  Marcian,  No.  78 ;  to  Pulcheria,  79 ;  to  Anatolius, 
80  (P.L.  Iiv.  907-909,  909-912,  912-915).     Geiserich  sacked  Rome  in  455. 

3  It  is  clear  that  this  was  a  misunderstanding.  Marcian  had  not  yet 
received  Leo's  later  letter  disparaging  the  idea  of  a  council.  Hefele- 
Leclercq  :    op.  cit.  ii.  (1),  639. 

4  Now  Kadikoi.  5  His  letter  is  in  Mansi,  v.  557. 

6  The  texts  which  show  this  will  be  found  in  the  Orth.  Eastern  Church, 
PP-  36-37,  40-41- 


MONOPHYSISM  177 

place  after  Rome.1  The  Council  held  altogether  twenty-one 
sessions  2  lasting  till  November  1.  Of  these  only  the  first  eight 3 
have  oecumenical  authority  (October  8-25) .  Altogether  about  630 
bishops  attended  ;  we  have  noted  that  Chalcedon  is  considerably 
the  largest  synod  of  antiquity.  All  were  Easterns,  except  the 
legates  and  two  Africans. 

The  Papal  legates  presided,  as  representing  the  chief  Patriarch. 
There  is  no  doubt  at  all  about  this.  They  sit  in  the  first  place, 
open  the  Council,  and  sign  the  acts  first.  The  Council  writes  to 
the  Pope  :  "  You,  as  being  the  head,  presided  in  the  person  of  those 
who  represented  you."  4  Leo  himself  says  of  his  legates  :  "They 
presided  over  the  Eastern  Synod  in  my  place."  5  The  Emperor 
sent  a  number  of  commissioners  to  keep  order  and  to  arrange 
practical  details.6  They  had,  of  course,  no  vote.  The  Council 
says  of  them  :  "  The  Emperor  ruled  for  the  sake  of  order."  7  The 
Papal  legates  were  Paschasinus  Bishop  of  Lilybaeum,  Lucentius 
Bishop  of  Ascoli,  and  the  Roman  priest  Boniface.  Julian,  Bishop 
of  Cos  in  the  Cyclades,  had  an  additional  commission  from  the  Pope ; 
he  acts  with  the  others  as  supplementary  legate.  But  he  had  not 
been  named  with  the  others  in  Leo's  original  letters ;  he  was  an 
Eastern  bishop,  under  the  jurisdiction  of  John  of  Rhodes,  so  he 
sat,  not  with  the  legates,  but  among  the  bishops.8  After  the 
legates  sat  Anatolius  of  Constantinople.  This  place,  higher  than 
that  to  which  he  had  a  right,  has  something  to  do  with  his  obtain- 
ing it  permanently  by  the  28th  Canon.  He  should  have  sat  below 
the  Patriarchs  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch.  But  Dioscor  of 
Alexandria  had  already  been  condemned  by  the  Pope.  He 
appeared  at  the  Council  only  as  a  culprit  to  be  judged.  Maximus 
of  Antioch  was  a  mere  creature  of  Anatolius  who  was  not  likely  to 
insist  on  his  rights.9 

Paschasinus  as  Papal  legate  opened  the  Council  in  Latin.     He 

1  lb.  37-42- 

2  See  the  corrected  table  in  Hefele-Leclercq,  ii.  (2),  pp.  655-656. 

3  Generally  numbered  as  six,  the  fourth  having  three  parts. 

4  Mansi,  vi.  148.  *  Ep.  103  (P.L.  liv.  988). 

6  Their  names  in  Hefele-Leclercq  :   op.  cit.  ii.  (2),  665. 

7  BcctnAeus  5e  trphs  tvnocrfxiav  f^rjPX0Vt  Mansi,  vi.  I47. 

8  For  the  reasons  of  his  rather  anomalous  position  see  Hefele-Leclercq  : 
ii.  (2),  667,  n.  1. 

9  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  pp.  35-36. 

12 


178        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

said  :  "  The  instructions  of  the  most  blessed  and  apostolic  Bishop 
of  Rome  forbid  us  to  sit  here  in  company  with  Dioscor,  Arch- 
bishop of  Alexandria/'  and  he  ordered  him  to  leave  his  place 
among  the  judges  and  to  sit  in  the  middle  to  be  judged.1  The 
Secretary  of  the  Council  translated  this  command  into  Greek, 
and  it  was  obeyed.  Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  on  the  other  hand,  was 
admitted  among  the  bishops,  because  the  Pope  had  restored  him,  in 
spite  of  the  tumult  of  the  Egyptians.  They  shrieked  at  Theodoret : 
"  Turn  out  the  teacher  of  Nestorius  I  "  "  Turn  out  the  enemy 
of  God  !  "  The  "  Eastern  "  bishops  shouted  back  at  Dioscor  : 
"  Turn  out  the  murderer  of  Flavian  !  "  The  Imperial  commis- 
sioners called  for  order,  and  explained  that  this  kind  of  thing  did 
no  good,  and  was  not  dignified  conduct  for  bishops.  Dioscor, 
Juvenal  of  Jerusalem  and  four  other  Monophysites  were  judged, 
condemned  and  deposed.  They  did  not  appear  in  the  second 
session.  The  second  session  (October  10)  heard  and  received  the 
"  Nicene  "  Creed,  2  two  letters  of  St.  Cyril,  and  the  famous 
dogmatic  letter  of  Leo  to  Flavian.  It  was  then  that  the  Fathers 
cried  out  the  famous  words  :  "  This  is  the  faith  of  the  Fathers  ; 
this  is  the  faith  of  the  Apostles.  So  do  we  all  believe  ;  the  ortho- 
dox believe  this.  Peter  has  spoken  by  Leo  !  "  3  Some  bishops 
now  asked  for  mercy  on  those  who  had  taken  part  in  the  Robber- 
Synod.  These  confessed  that  they  had  only  taken  Dioscor 's  side 
in  abject  fear  of  his  violence.  In  the  third  session  (October  13) 
Eusebius  of  Dorylxum  and  others  brought  forth  many  accusa- 
tions against  Dioscor.  He  was  invited  to  hear  them,  but  would 
not  come.  In  the  fourth  session  (October  17)  his  accomplices  at  the 
Robber-Synod  retracted  all  they  had  done,  signed  the  Pope's 
dogmatic  letter,  and  were  pardoned  and  restored.  Dioscor  him- 
self alone  refused  to  submit.  His  deposition  was  confirmed,  and 
it  was  ordered  that  a  successor  be  chosen  to  fill  his  see.  The  fifth 
session  (October  22)  drew  up  the  profession  of  faith  of  Chalcedon, 
which  has  ever  since  been  the  standard  of  the  Catholic  faith 
against  both  Nestorianism  and  Monophysism.  It  affirms  again 
the  faith  of  Ephesus  in  431,  and  includes  the  Theot6kos  :  "  We 
confess  one  and  the  same  Christ  Jesus,  the  only-begotten,  in  whom 

1  Mansi,  vi.  580-581. 

2  Of  course  with  the  later  additions.  3  Mansi,  vi.  972. 


MONOPHYSISM  179 

we  acknowledge  two  natures  without  mixture,  without  change, 
without  separation,  without  division  ;  1  for  the  difference  of  the 
two  natures  is  not  suppressed  by  their  union.  On  the  contrary, 
the  attributes  of  either  nature  are  kept  intact  and  subsist  in  one 
person  and  one  hypostasis.  We  confess  not  a  (Lord)  divided  and 
separated  in  several  persons,  but  one  only  Son,  only-begotten,  the 
Word  of  God,  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  2 

This,  then,  is  the  famous  symbol 3  of  Chalcedon,  which  henceforth 
is  the  test  of  Catholicism  as  opposed  to  Monophysism.  From  now 
the  situation  theologically  becomes  simple.  A  Catholic  is  (as  far 
as  the  Christological  question  is  concerned)  one  who  accepts  the 
dogmatic  decree  of  the  fifth  session  of  Chalcedon  ;  a  Monophysite 
is  not  a  man  who  accepts  all  Eutyches'  ideas,  but  one  who  rejects 
this.  We  shall  still  hear  very  much  about  Monophysite  troubles. 
The  disturbance  lasted  for  centuries  in  the  empire,  and  finally 
produced  the  four  heretical  Churches  of  which  the  stories  remain 
to  be  told.  But  from  now  there  is  no  more  controversy  among 
Catholics.  The  Monophysites  soon  settle  down  as  rival  sects .  This 
symbol  ends  the  discussion  which  began  twenty-two  years  before, 
when  Anastasius  preached  against  the  title  Theotokos  (p.  61). 
Now  let  the  reader  look  again  at  this  symbol  and  ask  himself : 
Was  it  worth  all  this  disturbance,  these  synods  and  anti-synods, 
depositions  of  bishops  and  anathemas,  the  noisy  meetings  and 
shrieking  crowds  which  fill  up  so  much  of  the  5th  century,  in  order 
to  arrive  at  a  conclusion  so  obvious  that  one  would  think  that 
any  reasonable  man  who  knew  his  New  Testament  would  admit 
it  at  once  ? 

The  Council  had  done  its  work  ;  it  would  have  been  better  if 
the  bishops  had  gone  home  at  once.  However,  they  stayed  at 
Chalcedon  some  time  longer,  and  made  further  laws  which  were  to 
have  far-reaching  and  by  no  means  happy  results.     Marcian  and 

1  aavyKVTOis,  aTp€TTTws  (against  Monophysism),  aSicupercoy,  dx^piVrcos 
(against  Nestorianism) . 

2  The  text  of  the  whole  decree  is  in  Mansi.vii.  116;  also  in  Hefele-Leclercq, 
ii.  (2),  722-726  ;  cf.  Denzinger  :  Enchiridion,  No.  148.  For  the  question 
of  the  variant  readings,  eV  860  (pvaernv  or  e*  dvo  (pvaewv,  in  this  declara- 
tion, see  Hefele-Leclercq,  ii.  (2),  p.  723,  n.  1. 

3  Symbol  in  rather  a  different  sense  from  the  creed  of  Nicsea.  That  was 
as  condensed  a  statement  as  possible  ;  this  Chalcedonian  declaration  is 
long  and  detailed. 


i8o   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Pulcheria  had  not  so  far  honoured  the  synod  with  their  Imperial 
presence.  They  now  came  to  applaud  and  confirm  all  that  had 
passed.  The  sixth  session  (October  25)  saw  them  arrive  in  great 
pomp  with  a  huge  retinue  and  all  the  senators.  Marcian  made  a 
speech  in  Latin x  beginning,  "  Since  my  reign  began  I  have  always 
had  the  purity  of  the  faith  at  heart,"  and  expatiating  on  his  own 
virtue  and  piety,2  as  Emperors  do.  And  the  bishops  acclaimed 
him  as  bishops  do :  "  Long  life  to  the  Emperor !  Long  life  to 
the  Empress  !  Glory  to  Marcian  the  new  Const antine  !  "  The 
decrees  of  the  Council  were  again  read  out  with  acclamations. 
Marcian  declared  them  the  law  of  the  empire,  and  threatened  dire 
penalties  against  all  who  should  reject  them.  Again  one  asks 
why  the  Fathers  did  not  now  go  home. 

But  further  sessions 3  dragged  on  till  November  1.  In  these  they 
made  disciplinary  canons.  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  anathematized 
Nestorius,  and  was  now  considered  quite  orthodox.4  Juvenal  of 
Jerusalem  at  last  succeeded  in  getting  his  see  raised  to  a  Patriarch- 
ate,5 and  Anatolius  persuaded  the  Council  to  raise  Constantinople 
to  the  second  place  in  Christendom.  The  30  Canons  (of  which  the 
28th  gives  this  rank  to  Constantinople)  were  passed  in  the  absence 
of  the  legates  (session  15,  October  31).  The  legates  protested 
in  the  last  session  against  the  new  position  given  to  Constantinople, 
to  the  detriment  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch.6  Rome  and  the  West 
never  accepted  this  canon.  It  remained  as  the  germ  from  which 
the  great  schism  would  arise,  four  centuries  later.7     Then  at  last 

1  This  detail  may  be  noticed.  Marcian  and  practically  the  whole  synod 
spoke  Greek  naturally.  Marcian  probably  knew  very  little  Latin.  But 
Latin  was  still  the  official  language  of  the  Roman  Empire,  and  on  so  solemn 
an  occasion  as  this  the  Emperor's  dignity  required  that  he  should  use  it. 
The  speech  which  he  had  laboriously  learned  in  a  foreign  language  then 
had  to  be  translated  into  Greek,  so  that  the  bishops  could  understand  it. 

2  Mansi,  vii.  129-130. 

3  Leclercq  counts  ten  more,  sixteen  altogether. 

4  Till  the  question  of  the  Three  Chapters  began,  in  which  he  was  again 
made  a  scapegoat,  to  please  the  Monophysites  (p.  202). 

5  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  p.  27. 

6  This  is  the  reason  of  their  protest  and  of  that  of  St.  Leo  later.  No  one 
thought  of  attacking  the  Pope's  first  place.  Constantinople  was  to  be 
second  after  Rome. 

7  The  whole  question  is  discussed  in  the  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  pp. 
37-42. 


MONOPHYSISM  181 

the  Council  was  closed.1  An  exceptionally  respectful  letter  was 
sent  to  the  Pope,  asking  for  his  confirmation.2  He  confirmed  the 
dogmatic  decree,  but  explicitly  rejected  the  28th  Canon.3  On 
February  7,  452,  Marcian,  together  with  his  Western  colleague 
Valentinian  III,4  published  a  decree  deposing  and  banishing  all 
who  resisted  the  Council.  Eutyches  died  in  exile  just  at  this 
time";  Dioscor  died,  also  exiled,  at  Ganges  in  Paphlagonia,  454.5 

4.  Later  Monophysite  Troubles 

It  would  seem  now  as  if  Monophysism  were  dead.  A  general 
Council  had  rejected  it ;  the  Pope  had  confirmed  its  rejection. 
East  and  West  alike  condemned  it.  Unhappily,  there  was  to  be 
as  tragic  a  sequel  to  this  heresy  as  there  had  been  to  Arianism 
after  Nicsea.  It  was  still  to  cause  enormous  trouble  in  the 
Eastern  Empire  before  it  finally  settled  down  in  the  heretical  sects 
of  Copts,  Abyssinians,  Jacobites  and  Armenians.  Before  we 
come  to  the  special  history  of  these  sects  it  will  be  well  to  trace  the 
general  disturbance  this  heresy  caused  in  the  empire.  This  will 
lead  us  beyond  the  foundation  of  the  separated  Churches  ;  but  it 
is  more  or  less  one  story,  which  we  may  as  well  clear  up  before  we 
leave  the  great  Church  of  the  empire  and  discuss  their  local  history. 

After  Chalcedon  there  was  still  a  great  number  of  people, 
chiefly  in  Egypt  and  Syria,  who  refused  to  accept  its  decrees,  who 
sympathized  with  Dioscor  and  saw  in  his  deposition  an  attack  on 
St.  Cyril  and  on  the  Council  of  Ephesus  in  431,  who  thought 
Chalcedon  had  given  way  to  Nestorianism.  These  are  the  Mono- 
physites,  whom  various  Emperors  will  vainly  try  to  conciliate. 
Out  of  these  attempts  to  conciliate  the  Monophysites  arise  a 
crowd  of  minor  heresies,  compromises  and  evasive  formulas  which 
satisfy  no  one,  which  lead  to  fresh  schisms  and  further  confusions. 

1  For  all  the  story  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  see  Hefele-Leclercq  :  op, 
cit.  ii.  (2),  649-834.  2  P.G.  liv.  958. 

3  Ep.  105  (P.L.  liv.  997-1002),  114  (ib.  1027-1032). 

4  Emperor  in  the  West,  423-455. 

5  For  the  Papal  acceptance  and  sequel  of  Chalcedon  see  Hefele-Leclercq, 
ii.  (2),  835-857.  Note  that  the  East,  too,  abandoned  Canon  28  till  it  was 
revived  by  Photius  [ib.  855-857).  It  has  never  been  included  in  any  collec- 
tion of  canon  law  made  by  Catholics.  As  Orthodox  canon  law  it  dates, 
not  from  Chalcedon,  but  from  their  schism. 


182   THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

There  are  subdivisions  and  all  manner  of  strange  new  heresies 
among  the  Monophysites  themselves  ;  one  of  these  off-shoots  of 
Monophysism  falls  into  the  worst  abomination  of  which  a  so-called 
Christian  can  possibly  be  guilty — Polytheism  ;  for  there  was  a 
sect  of  people  who  at  last  plainly  said  there  are  three  Gods  (p.  208). 
The  6th  century  in  Eastern  Christendom  offers  a  desolating 
picture  of  confused  heresies.  And  all  the  time  the  Barbarians 
loom  on  the  frontiers  of  the  empire.  Never  had  Roman 
citizens  so  urgent  reason  to  stand  together  and  keep  off  the 
common  foe  as  at  this  time,  when  they  were  tearing  each  other, 
murdering,  raising  tumults,  deposing  Emperors  for  the  sake  of 
ambiguous  formulas.  And  then  in  the  hot  desert  of  Arabia  arose 
the  little  cloud  which  was  to  burst  over  the  richest  province  of  the 
empire.  Now  from  the  churches  for  which  these  sects  quarrelled 
and  fought  the  altars  have  been  taken  away ;  from  their  towers 
the  mu'eddin  proclaims  that  Mohammed  is  the  Apostle  of  God. 
It  is  a  dismal  story  ;  one  can  hardly  deny  that  these  preposterous 
Eastern  Christians  deserved  the  appalling  disaster  which  swept 
over  all  their  sects.  Meanwhile,  with  the  one  exception  of  Pope 
Vigilius'  incident  (pp.  201-205),  the  whole  West  behind  its 
Patriarch  stood  solid  for  Chalcedon  and  watched  the  turmoil  in 
the  East  scornfully. 

There  is  another  general  issue  to  be  considered  in  the  later 
Monophysite  quarrels.  Was  the  heresy  their  real  motive  at  all  ? 
It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  the  reason  which  drove  crowds  of 
Egyptian  peasants  and  Syrian  monks  to  wild  acts  of  violence, 
to  rebellion,  fighting,  burning  soldiers  alive,  was  an  abstruse 
question  about  our  Lord's  nature.  So  most  historians  see  in  all 
this  story  really  a  political  motive,  working  under  guise  of  a 
theological  dispute.  Egypt  and  Syria  were  just  the  two  provinces 
in  the  East  which  had  never  been  really  loyal  to  the  empire. 
They  had  never  been  thoroughly  Hellenized.  Both  kept  their  own 
languages,  both  had  ancient  civilizations  of  their  own,  totally 
different  from  that  of  the  Greek  court  of  the  Roman  Emperor  at 
Constantinople.  To  Syria  and  Egypt  he  was  a  foreign  conqueror. 
The  governors  and  soldiers  whom  he  sent  to  keep  order  in  these 
provinces  were  foreigners,  holding  down  unwilling  natives  by 
force.     So  these  countries  were  always  ready  for  revolt,  always 


MONOPHYSISM  183 

gave  trouble  to  the  Government.  We  see  how  loose  was  the  bond 
which  held  them  to  the  empire  by  the  ease  with  which  they  fell  a 
prey  to  the  Arabs  in  the  7th  century.  In  Syria  and  Egypt  the 
natives  welcomed,  instead  of  resisting,  these  enemies  of  the 
empire.  It  was  no  doubt  this  same  feeling  of  local  patriotism,  of 
anti-imperialism,  which  made  the  natives  of  these  countries 
Monophysites.  To  Egyptians  especially  it  was  a  matter  of 
national  honour.  They  remembered  the  Council  of  Ephesus  in 
431  as  the  great  triumph  of  Egypt  over  the  "  East  "  and  over 
Constantinople.  There  the  Egyptian  Patriarch  had  deposed  the 
Bishop  of  Constantinople.  St.  Cyril  was  their  great  national  hero. 
Understanding  very  little  of  the  theological  issue,  the  Egyptian 
monks,  parabolani,  peasants,  triumphed  again  when  at  Ephesus  in 
449  their  Patriarch  once  more  deposed  a  Bishop  of  Constantinople. 
It  was  the  same  thing  over  again.  As  Cyril  had  defeated  Nes- 
torius,  so  didDioscor,  Cyril's  successor,  defeat  Flavian,  Nestorius's 
successor.  And  then  Chalcedon  reversed  the  process.  There 
Anatolius  of  Constantinople  and  the  Emperor  deposed  Dioscor. 
It  was  an  appalling,  an  unheard-of  outrage  on  Egypt  that  its 
Patriarch,  its  "  ecclesiastical  Pharaoh,"  should  stand  as  a  culprit 
before  Byzantine  bishops,  should  be  deposed,  excommunicated, 
banished.  So  Egypt  rose  to  defend  its  Pharaoh,  to  defend  the 
cause  of  Ephesus  and  Cyril,  which  was  the  cause  of  the  old 
Fatherland  by  the  Nile.  It  was  Egyptians  who  first  persuaded 
people  in  Syria  and  Palestine  to  join  them  in  the  common  cause 
against  the  Emperor  and  his  Government.  The  decrees  of 
Chalcedon  were  made  the  law  of  the  empire  ;  they  were  enforced 
by  Government,  sometimes  very  cruelly.  So  these  provinces 
found  in  resisting  Chalcedon  an  outlet  for  their  simmering  hos- 
tility to  the  Emperor.  What  really  mattered  most  to  the  great 
crowd  of  Monophysites  who  remained  after  Chalcedon  was  not  a 
difficult  point  of  metaphysics  :  it  was  that  the  Government  wanted 
to  enforce  this  teaching — therefore  they  were  against  it.  The  faith 
of  Chalcedon  was  Caesar's  religion,  therefore  it  was  not  theirs.  If 
they  could  not  overturn  Caesar's  rule  altogether,  at  anyrate  they 
could  stir  up  riots  in  this  matter  and  could  show  how  they  hated 
him  by  refusing  to  accept  his  theology. 
Then  there  was  the    usual  reversed  movement.     As  heresy 


184   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

sprang  from  political  movements,  so  did  political  movements 
spring  from  the  heresy.  The  Monophysites  became  a  powerful 
and  dangerous  faction.  They  had  their  own  leaders  in  politics  ; 
the  question  of  conciliating  the  Monophysites  comes  up  continu- 
ally, in  the  usurpations  and  rivalries  around  the  Imperial  throne 
there  are  pretenders — claimants  who  come  forward  avowedly  as 
champions  of  Monophysism,  who  are  backed  by  all  Monophysites, 
while  the  Chalcedonians  fight  against  them. 

The  first  scene  of  Monophysite  agitation  was  naturally  Egypt. 
Egypt  heard  of  the  humiliation  of  its  hero  Dioscor  with  fury.  Al- 
ready at  Chalcedon  thirteen  Egyptian  bishops  refused  to  sign  the 
decrees.1  After  the  Council  the  party  in  Egypt  which  accepted 
it  2  elected  one  Proterius,  formerly  a  priest  of  Alexandria,3  who 
accepted  Chalcedon,  to  succeed  Dioscor.  We  have  already  seen 
that  Dioscor  was  banished  to  Gangra  in  Paphlagonia,  and  died 
there  in  454.  Before  he  died,  the  Egyptian  Monophysites  send  a 
deputation  to  assure  him  of  their  unswerving  fidelity  to  him  and 
to  his  Robber-Synod.  The  Emperor,  on  the  other  hand,  pub- 
lished a  new  decree  (July  28,  452)  threatening  dire  penalties 
against  all  who  do  not  acknowledge  Proterius.  So  we  have  al- 
ready clearly  the  two  parties  in  Egypt.  The  "  Imperial  "  party, 
the  Greek  garrison,  officials,  governors — in  short,  the  foreign  ruling 
class — obey  the  Emperor,  accept  Chalcedon  and  acknowledge 
Proterius.  This  party  acquires  a  name  which  was  to  become 
famous  in  Egypt  and  Syria,  which  is  still  used,  though  now  in  a 
different  sense.  They  are  the  "  Imperialists,"  in  Greek  /WiAikoi.4 
In  Syria  the  Emperor  (/Sao-iAeus)  is  always  malkd,  in  Arabic 
almalik.     From  this  comes  the  form  Melkite?  meaning  exactly 

1  Their  excuse  was  ingenious.  They  said  that  their  Patriarch  was 
deposed  ;  no  other  had  yet  been  appointed.  Therefore  they  had  no  chief 
and  could  not  do  anything.     Mansi,  vii.  482. 

2  That  is  the  Court  party,  the  Greek  official  class.  Liberatus  calls  them 
the  "  nobiles  civitatis  "  (Breviarium  Histories  Nestorianorum  et  Eutychi- 
anorum,  written  between  560  and  566,  cap.  14  ;  P.L.  Ixviii.  1016).  These 
are  the  first  "  Melkites." 

3  Liberatus  calls  him  Archpriest  (ib.)  ;  Eutychius  of  Alexandria  (933-940  ; 
Contextio  gemmarum,  P.G.  cxi.  1054)  says  he  was  Archdeacon. 

4  So  Timothy  Salophakiolos,  Proterius'  successor,  is  called  &cl(ti\ik6s 
by  Evagrius  (Hist.  Eccl.  ii.  11  ;   P.G.  lxxxvi.  2533). 

5  Me\KiTr)s,  with  a  Greek  ending.  The  Syriac  form  is  malkdyd,  Arabic 
malaktvu. 


MONOPHYSISM  185 

the  same  as  /WiAikoY  A  Melkite,  then,  is  a  man,  in  Syria  or 
Egypt,  who  accepts  Chalcedon,  the  opposite  of  a  Monophysite — in 
short,  an  orthodox  Catholic.  So  the  name  is  used  down  to  the 
great  schism  between  the  "  Orthodox  "  and  Catholics  in  the 
nth  century.  Since  then,  though  it  has  still  sometimes  been 
used  for  both  sides  in  that  schism,1  the  name  Melkite,  by  a  strange 
accident,  is  generally  restricted  to  people  in  these  lands  who  are 
in  union  with  the  Pope  and  use  the  Byzantine  rite.2  Now,  Byzan- 
tine Uniates  in  Semitic  countries  are  the  Melkites.  But  before 
the  great  schism  Catholics  and  "  Orthodox  "  are  one,  so  we  may 
call  them  indifferently  by  either  name,  or  Melkites,  as  opposed  to 
Monophysites  and  other  heretics.  Opposed,  bitterly  opposed,  to 
the  Melkites,  to  the  Emperor's  Patriarch  Proterius,  was  the  great 
mass  of  the  native  Egyptian  population.  Especially  now  we  see 
how  much  politics  had  to  do  with  this  heresy.  The  native 
Egyptians,  who  kept  their  own  language,  hating  the  empire  and 
the  Imperial  functionaries  and  soldiers,  were  ardent  Monophysites, 
loathed  Proterius  and  clung  to  Dioscor,  their  national  hero. 
Since  the  Egyptian  language  is  already  Coptic,  we  may  now  call 
these  Egyptian  Monophysites  Copts  (p.  215).  We  shall  see  that 
they  become  the  national  Church  of  Egypt.  The  Emperor  sent 
an  additional  garrison  of  2000  soldiers  to  Alexandria  to  keep  down 
the  Monophysites  and  enforce  Proterius's  authority.  Proterius 
did  enforce  his  authority  ;  he  oppressed  the  natives  cruelly.  Then 
came  the  news  of  Dioscor's  death  in  454.3  This  should  have 
helped  to  bring  about  order  by  removing  Proterius's  rival.  In- 
stead, it  inflamed  his  adherents  with  the  memory  of  his  sufferings. 
The  Copts,  the  great  crowd  of  Egyptian  monks,  who  had  never 
recognized  Proterius,  clamoured  for  a  successor  to  Dioscor. 
Naturally  Proterius,  the  garrison  and  the  Melkites  would  not 
admit  that  Dioscor  needed  a  successor.  Just  then  the  Emperor 
Marcian  died  (February  1,  457).  He  was  succeeded  by  Leo  I  (457- 
474).  The  Copts  took  advantage  of  the  inevitable  disturbance 
at  a  change  of  reign  to  break  into  open  revolt.     Their  leader  was 

1  This  should  be  noted      Even  now  the  Orthodox,  as  well  as  Uniates, 
are  sometimes  called  Melkites,  in  the  old  sense,  as  opposed  to  Monophysites. 

2  It  is   a   strange   accident,  since   Imperial  is   just  what  the   Uniates 
are  not. 

3  The  Copts  keep  his  memory  as  that  of  a  saint  and  martyr  (p.  287). 


186        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

one  Timothy,  surnamed  the  Cat.1  He  had  been  a  friend  of  St. 
Cyril,  then  of  Dioscor.  He  was  a  pronounced  Monophysite,  though 
he  formally  rejected  Eutyches's  special  ideas.2  Now  he  emerges 
as  the  chief  Monophysite  leader  after  Dioscor's  death  ;  he  is  one  of 
the  founders  of  the  heretical  Coptic  Church.  Timothy  was  schis- 
matically  ordained  by  three  Monophysite  bishops  as  Dioscor's 
successor.  Proterius,  protected  by  the  soldiers,  of  course  refused 
to  acknowledge  him  in  any  way.  But  at  Easter  457,  Proterius  was 
murdered  by  the  mob,  and  his  body  was  dragged  around  the  city. 
Timothy  at  once  occupied  the  Patriarch's  palace,  excommunicated 
and  drove  out  all  Chalcedonian  bishops.  These  protested  to  the 
Emperor.3  Meanwhile  the  mob  shut  up  the  soldiers  in  the  old 
Serapeion  (Temple  of  Serapis),  set  fire  to  it,  and  burned  them  alive. 
All  Egypt  was  in  an  uproar.  Timothy  also  had  written  to  the 
Emperor  asking  to  be  recognized  as  Patriarch  of  Alexandria. 
The  Emperor  (Leo  I)  embarked  on  that  futile  policy  of  trying  to 
conciliate  the  Monophysites  which  was  to  cause  so  much  trouble 
for  centuries.  Instead  of  rejecting  the  Cat's  insolent  petition  at 
once,  instead  of  sending  an  army  to  avenge  the  massacre  of  his 
soldiers  and  punish  the  rebels,  he  fell  back  on  the  time-honoured 
expedient  of  summoning  a  new  council  to  discuss  Timothy's 
claim  and,  presumably,  to  reopen  the  whole  question  settled  by 
Chalcedon.  Anatolius  of  Constantinople  urged  him  to  do  this. 
The  self-styled  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  still  felt  uncertain 
about  his  position  and  his  28th  Canon  of  Chalcedon.  The  legates 
and  then  the  Pope  had  rejected  it  formally.  Anatolius  thought 
that  a  new  council  might,  incidentally,  fortify  and  regularize  his 
own  position.  So  in  October  457,  Leo,  the  Emperor,  sent  out  a 
letter  (composed  by  Anatolius)4  to  all  bishops  of  the  empire, 
asking  their  opinion  about  events  in  Egypt,  and  inviting  them  to 
a  synod  to  discuss  the  matter.  But  this  time  there  was  no  council. 
With  one  exception  5  they  all  answered  that  there  is  nothing  to 

1  Tiix6dtos  Mkovpos.     Kl\ovpos  is  a  cat  or  weasel ;  in  Egypt  more  likely  to 
be  a  cat.     This  is  apparently  a  nickname  given  by  his  enemies. 

2  This  is  again  evidence  that  a  man  may  be  a  Monophysite  and  yet  reject 
Eutyches. 

3  Evagrius  :     Hist.   Eccl.   ii.    8    (P.G.    lxxxvi.   2524-2525)  ;     Mansi,   vii. 
524-530. 

4  Mansi,  vii.  521-522 ;  cf.  795.         5  Amphilochins  of  Side  in  Pamphylia. 


MONOPHYSISM  187 

discuss.  Chalcedon  has  settled  the  question ;  Timothy  is  a 
heretic  and  a  bloodthirsty  rebel ;  he  must  be  turned  out.1 
Pope  Leo  answers  strongly  to  the  same  effect  ;  he  wants  no  more 
synods  about  Monophysism,  he  insists  that  Timothy  can  never  be 
acknowledged  lawful  Patriarch  of  the  see  which  he  has  iniquit- 
ously  seized.2  Then  Anatolius  died  (July  3,  458),  and  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Gennadius  I  (458-471),  a  learned  and  accomplished 
person,3  firmly  devoted  to  the  faith  of  Chalcedon.  Gennadius 
and  the  uncompromising  answers  of  the  Pope  and  bishops  per- 
suaded the  Emperor  to  give  up  his  idea  of  a  new  synod.  Instead, 
he  took  a  stronger  line  and  banished  Timothy  the  Cat.  It  was 
not  till  early  in  460  that  the  Imperial  garrison  again  obtained 
enough  power  in  Egypt  to  carry  out  this  sentence.  Then  the  Cat 
was  brought  to  Constantinople  and  sent  into  exile  in  the  Cher- 
sonesus.  He  ought  to  have  been  put  to  death  for  a  rebel  and  a 
murderer.  Another  Timothy,  called  Salophakiolos,4  a  Catholic, 
was  made  Patriarch  of  Alexandria.  He  was  kind  to  the  Mono- 
physites,  perhaps  too  ready  to  compromise  with  them.  They  are 
reported  by  Libera tus  to  have  said  to  him :  "  If  we  do  not  com- 
municate with  you,  yet  we  love  you."  5 

Meanwhile,  there  was  as  much  trouble  in  Palestine.6  Juvenal 
of  Jerusalem  was  one  of  Dioscor's  chief  supporters  at  the  Robber- 
Synod.  At  Chalcedon  he  expressed  great  regret  for  this,  rehabili- 
tated himself,  signed  the  Chalcedonian  decree,  and  in  return  at 
last  secured  the  Patriarchate  for  himself  and  his  successors.7 
But  when  he  came  home  he  found  a  great  part  of  his  newly 

1  Some  of  these  letters  are  in  Mansi,  vii.  537-627. 

2  Ep.  162  (P.L.  liv.  1143-1146). 

3  "  Gennadius,  Pontiff  of  the  Constantinopolitan  Church,  a  man  of  polished 
speech  and  acute  mind,  was  so  well  versed  in  the  writings  of  the  ancients 
1hat  he  made  a  literal  commentary  on  the  whole  of  the  prophet  Daniel. 
He  also  composed  many  homilies.  He  died  while  the  elder  Leo  held  the 
empire."  Gennadius  of  Marseilles  :  de  Viribus  illustribus,  89  (ed.  Bernoulli 
in  Kriiger's  Sammlung,  xi.,  Freiburg  and  Leipzig,  1895,  p.  92). 

4  2a\o0o«'oAos=  Wobble-hat  {adhos  and  (pctKidAiov).  These  people  have 
curious  nicknames.  This  one  is  apparently  a  term  of  reproach  implying 
weakness  of  character  and  general  vacillation. 

5  Breviarium  cans.  Nest,  et  Eutych.  16  (P.L.  lxviii.  1020). 

6  Since  Chalcedon  made  Jerusalem  a  Patriarchate  (Orth.  Eastern  Church, 
p.  27)  we  may  count  Palestine  (under  Jerusalem)  separate  from  Syria  (under 
Antioch),"  7  Op.  cit.  pp.  26-27. 


188        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

acquired  Patriarchate  up  in  arms  against  him.  He  had  changed 
sides,  had  denied  the  very  cause  of  which  he  had  been  so  great 
a  champion.  It  was  chiefly  the  monks  of  Palestine  who  now 
declared  for  Monophysism.  There  was  an  enormous  number  of 
them — ten  thousand.  An  Egyptian  monk,  Theodosius,  who  had 
been  an  unwilling  witness  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  persuaded 
his  Palestinian  brethren  that  this  synod  had  betrayed  the  faith  of 
Cyril  and  Ephesus,  had  gone  over  to  Nestorius.  And  their  bishop, 
now  returning  in  the  pride  of  being  a  Patriarch,  was  contaminated 
by  this  stain.  A  lady  then  living  in  retirement  at  Jerusalem 
took  the  side  of  the  angry  monks  vehemently.  This  was  the 
Dowager  Empress  Eudokia,  widow  of  Theodosius  II.  She  had 
been  a  pagan  at  Athens,  named  Athenais,  daughter  of  an  old 
professor  Leontios.  When  Theodosius's  sister  Pulcheria  looked 
out  for  a  bride  for  her  brother,  her  choice  fell  on  this  little  pagan 
girl.  Her  extraordinary  beauty  and  talent  made  her  not  un- 
worthy of  the  Emperor's  love,  while  her  humble  station  seemed 
to  secure  that  she  would  not  interfere  with  her  powerful  sister-in- 
law.  So  Athenais  was  baptized,  taking  the  more  Christian  name 
Eudokia,  and  was  duly  married  to  Theodosius  (June  7,  421).  For 
a  time  she  was  very  powerful ;  surrounded  by  Christian  influence, 
she  became  ardently  Christian,  went  on  pilgrimages,1  and  had 
more  influence  over  her  husband  than  Pulcheria  liked.  Then 
came  her  tragic  fall ;  she  was  accused,  rightly  or  wrongly,  of 
misconduct  with  a  courtier,  Paulinus.  The  story  is  all  about  an 
apple.  Theodosius,  master  of  the  Roman  world,  thought  he 
would  give  his  wife  a  really  handsome  present.  So  he  gave  her 
an  apple  from  Phrygia  of  incomparable  size  and  ripeness.  Eudo- 
kia, overwhelmed  by  the  splendour  of  the  gift,  thought  the  apple 
far  too  fine  to  be  eaten  by  her ;  so,  alas  !  she  gave  it  to  her  guilty 
lover  Paulinus.  Paulinus,  possessed  of  this  gorgeous  object, 
having  no  idea  whence  it  originally  came,  thinks  he  can  curry 
favour  with  the  Emperor  by  offering  it  to  him.  So  the  apple  goes 
all  the  way  round  and  comes  back  whence  it  started.  Theodosius 
is  naturally  furious  when  his  apple  comes  back  to  him.  He  hides 
it  in  his  robe,  goes  to  find  his  wife,  and  asks  her  what  she  had  done 

1  It  was  Eudokia  who  brought  St.  Peter's  chains  from  Jerusalem.     See 
the  lessons  of  the  second  nocturn  in  the  Breviary  for  Lammas-day  (Aug.  1). 


MONOPHYSISM  189 

with  the  apple  he  had  given  her.  "  I  ate  it,"  said  Eudokia.  Then 
of  course,  he  produced  it,  and  there  was  a  scene.1  As  a  result  of 
the  suspicion  about  Eudokia  and  Paulinus  2  she  was  banished, 
went  to  Jerusalem  in  442,  and  stayed  there  eighteen  years,  till  her 
death  in  460.  At  Jerusalem  whatever  old  remnants  of  the  Pagan 
philosopher  there  were  faded  away.  Eudokia  became  a  kind  of 
nun,  devoting  her  old  age  to  meditation  on  the  Passion  of  Christ  at 
the  place  hallowed  by  its  memory.  She  fell  in  with  the  Mono- 
physites.  Perhaps  the  fact  that  her  old  enemy  Pulcheria  and 
Pulcheria's  husband  Marcian  had  so  much  to  do  with  Chalcedon 
made  her  more  ready  to  believe  that  that  synod  had  betrayed  the 
faith  of  Ephesus,  held  during  her  own  reign.  With  her  meditation 
she  mixed  Monophysism,  and  became,  as  Dowager  Empress,  a 
great  power  to  that  party.  There  are  few  more  romantic  episodes 
in  Byzantine  history  than  the  story  of  the  little  Pagan  Athenian, 
after  her  short  burst  of  splendour  as  Empress,  spending  her  old 
age  in  long  years  of  mortification  and  prayer  at  Jerusalem,  the 
head  of  a  turbulent  body  of  heretical  monks.3 

The  monks  then,  with  their  patroness,  drove  out  Juvenal  and 
set  up  the  Egyptian  Theodosius  as  anti-Patriarch.  Other  Chal- 
cedonian  bishops  were  expelled  and  a  Monophysite  hierarchy 
intruded  in  most  sees.  Nearly  all  Palestine  was  Monophysite. 
Juvenal  fled  to  Constantinople  and  implored  the  Emperor's  help. 
Marcian  published  an  edict  against  the  heretics  in  Palestine  and 
sent  soldiers  to  enforce  it.  The  monks  had  already  shed  blood  in 
their  rebellion.  Now  it  was  put  down  severely.  After  some  fight- 
ing, order  was  restored.  Theodosius  was  brought  a  prisoner  to 
Constantinople,  where  he  died  in  captivity  ;  the  Monophysite 
intruded  bishops  fled,  mostly  to  Egypt.4  Juvenal  and  the  Catholic 
hierarchy  were  restored ;  for  a  time  there  was  quiet.  At  the  end 
of  her  life  Eudokia  was  converted  to  Chalcedon  by  the  Catholic 

1  This  odd  story  is  told  by  John  Malalas  :  Chronographia,  xiv.  ;  ed. 
Dindorf  (Corp.  Script.  Hist.  Byz.,  Bonn,  1831),  pp.  356-357. 

2  She  always  swore  that  she  was  perfectly  innocent  ;  very  likely  she  was. 
The  mighty  Pulcheria  was  jealous  of  her  influence,  and  wanted  to  get  rid 
of  her. 

3  Eudokia's  story  is  told  by  C.  Diehl :  Figures  Byzantines,  i.  (Paris,  1906), 
pp.  25-49. 

4  One  of  the  chief  of  these  was  Peter  of  Iberia,  who  had  been  made  Bishop 
of  Gaza. 


1 9o        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

monk  Euthymius,  who  was  a  great  power  on  that  side.  She 
died  reconciled  to  the  Church. 

At  Antioch  a  priest,  Peter  the  Fuller,1  started  an  agitation 
against  Chalcedon  ;  so  that  while  the  Eastern  part  of  the  Antio- 
chene  Patriarchate  was  falling  away  into  Nest  onanism,  the  West 
and  the  Patriarchal  city  itself  were  torn  by  the  opposite  heresy. 
Peter  was  protected  and  encouraged  by  the  Emperor's  son-in-law 
Zeno,  then  commander-in-chief  of  the  forces  in  Syria  ;  2  he,  too, 
gathered  around  him  a  strong  party,  succeeded  in  driving  out  the 
lawful  Patriarch,  Martyrios,  and  set  himself  up  as  Patriarch  of 
Antioch  (about  the  year  471).  This  Peter  is  famous  as  the  author 
of  a  liturgical  clause  which  was  destined  to  cause  much  trouble. 

Just  before  the  lessons  (or  just  after  them)  in  the  Antiochene 
rite  they  sing  the  Trisagion.  This  is  the  verse  which  occurs  in 
the  Roman  rite  on  Good  Friday  :  "  Holy  God,  holy  and  strong, 
holy  and  immortal,  have  mercy  on  us."  3  Peter  added  a  clause 
to  this,  and  made  his  clergy  sing :  "  Holy  God,  holy  and  strong, 
holy  and  immortal,  who  wast  crucified  for  us*  have  mercy  on  us." 
At  first  sight  it  is  not  easy  to  see  anything  wrong  in  this,  nor 
why  all  Chalcedonians  objected  to  it  so  strongly  It  depends,  of 
course,  on  who  is  addressed.  If  the  prayer  is  made  to  Christ,  the 
addition  is  perfectly  correct ;  it  might  well  stand  as  a  protest 
against  Nestorianism.  He  (the  same  person)  who  is  God,  holy 
and  immortal,  was  crucified  for  us.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was 
always  supposed  that  the  Trisagion  is  addressed  to  God,  to  the 
Holy  Trinity.5  In  this  case  Peter's  addition  would  involve  the 
idea  that  the  Holy  Trinity  was  crucified.  This  is  one  of  the 
strange  corollaries  of  the  Monophysite  idea.  It  would  follow.  If 
our  Lord  has  only  one  nature,  we  cannot  say  (as  we  do)  that  he 
died  in  his  human  nature,  while  his  divine  nature  remained  im- 

1  Yvcupevs,  fullo,  a  cloth-dresser,  apparently  his  trade. 

2  Afterwards  himself  Emperor  (474-491). 

3  In  the  Greek  Antiochene  liturgy  it  occurs  before  the  lessons  (Brightman  : 
Eastern  Liturgies,  p.  35)  ;  in  the  Syriac  form  it  follows  the  first  (ib.  p.  77). 
The  Byzantine  (p.  370),  Armenian  (p.  423),  Alexandrine  (118,  155),  Abys- 
sinian (218),  and  Nestorian  (255)  rites  also  have  the  Trisagion  at  about  the 
same  place. 

4  6  (rravpwQ^is  $1  y^as,  destlebth  hldfain. 

5  Its  triple  form  suggests  this  ;  though,  of  course,  one  must  not  think 
that  the  three  invocations  are  meant  one  for  each  Divine  Person. 


MONOPHYSISM  191 

mortal.  It  would  follow  that  his  Divinity  died.  This  really  is  a 
contradiction  in  terms.  It  would  also  follow  (since  there  is  only 
one  Divinity,  since  Christ's  Divinity  is  identical  with  that  of  his 
Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost)  that  the  Holy  Trinity  died.  Between 
Good  Friday  and  Easter  Day  there  would  be  no  living  God.  The 
idea  is  plainly  monstrous  and  blasphemous.  Nevertheless,  there 
was  a  sect,  a  subdivision  of  Monophysites,  which  held  this.  They 
are  called  Theopaschites  ; x  their  watchword  is  :  "  God  was  cruci- 
fied "  2  (p.  201).  Peter  the  Fuller  was  the  first  Theopaschite. 
His  clause  in  the  Trisagion  was  adopted  by  the  Monophysites  as 
a  kind  of  profession  of  their  heresy.  For  this  reason  it  was  rejected 
by  all  who  kept  the  faith  of  Chalcedon.  Peter's  second  successor, 
Kalandion  (p.  192),  finding  the  formula  established  and  greatly 
beloved  by  the  people,  being  himself  a  Catholic,  amended  it  by  a 
further  addition,  which  made  it  entirely  orthodox.  His  Trisagion 
was  :  "  Holy  God,  holy  and  strong,  holy  and  immortal,  Christ 
the  King  who  wast  crucified  for  us,  have  mercy  on  us."  This  makes 
it  clear  to  whom  the  prayer  is  addressed  ;  in  this  form  there  is 
nothing  whatever  to  complain  of.  But  the  Monophysites  would 
not  accept  the  words  :  "  Christ  the  King."  Better  than  any- 
thing else  this  fact  shows  that  they  really  did  mean  heresy  by 
their  formula.  So  Kalandion 's  addition  had  no  success.  The 
words  "  who  wast  crucified  for  us,"  in  the  Trisagion  remained  a 
declaration  of  Monophysism.  They  are  still  used  in  the  liturgy  of 
every  Monophysite  Church.3  Dionysius  Bar  Salibi  (f  1171), 
Monophysite  bishop  of  Amida,  and  one  of  their  great  liturgical 

1  OeoTTcurxiTcu  {Qebs  ird<rx*i,  "God  suffers").  The  name  needs  explana- 
tion. We  are  all  Theopaschites  in  the  sense  that  we  believe  that  God  the 
Son  suffered. 

2  0  dibs  iaravpccOr].  Again  a  perfectly  correct  form,  if  it  means  that 
God  the  Son  was  crucified.  It  is  difficult  to  understand  the  strong  feeling 
of  many  Catholics  against  these  formulas  unless  we  remember  that  they 
arose  in  Monophysite  circles,  and  were  known  to  be  meant  as  indirect 
attacks  on  Chalcedon.  Even  deoroicos  might  have  been  suspected  if  it 
had  arisen  under  these  circumstances. 

3  In  the  Coptic  liturgy  (Brightman,  p.  155),  Jacobite  (ib.  p.  77),  Arme- 
nian (p.  423),  Abyssinian  (p.  218).  On  certain  feasts,  similar  suitable 
clauses  ("  who  wast  born  of  the  holy  Virgin  Mary,"  "  who  didst  rise  from 
the  dead")  are  substituted.  Unless  we  remember  their  origin,  we  see 
nothing  in  these  but  what  is  edifying.  The  second  Trullanum  Council 
(692),  Can.  81,  forbade  the  clause  to  the  Orthodox. 


192        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

writers  (p.  331),  gives  a  long  justification  of  the  addition.  One 
of  his  explanations  is  that  when  our  Lord  was  buried  three  choirs 
of  angels  bore  his  body  to  the  grave  ;  one  choir  sang  "  Holy 
God "  ;  one,  "  Holy  and  strong"  ;  one,  "  Holy  and  immortal  "  ; 
then  Joseph  and  Nicodemus  added  :  "  who  wast  crucified  for  us, 
have  mercy  on  us."  1 

Peter  the  Fuller  did  not  reign  long.  The  Emperor,  Leo  I,  was 
determined  not  to  allow  Monophysism  anywhere.  So  after  a  few 
months  the  soldiers  received  orders  to  turn  him  out.  Martyrios 
was  not  restored ;  he  was  weary  of  the  trouble,  and  had  freely 
resigned  the  Patriarchate.  A  certain  Julian  became  Patriarch 
in  461. 2  There  is  now  an  organized  and  powerful  Monophysite 
party  in  Egypt,  Palestine  and  Syria  ;  it  has  adherents  at  Con- 
stantinople. 

Leo  I  (the  Emperor)  died  in  474.  He  was  succeeded  by  his 
grandson,  Leo  II,  a  child,  who  died  almost  at  once.  Then  came 
Zeno  (474-491).  Soon  after  there  was  a  revolution  ;  Zeno  fled, 
and  a  usurper,  Basiliskos  (brother-in-law  of  Leo  I),  made  himself 
Emperor  for  a  short  time  (475-476) .  Basiliskos  was  the  avowed 
champion  of  the  Monophysite  party.  Timothy  the  Cat  was  his 
intimate  friend.  He  immediately  restored  the  Cat  at  Alexandria, 
and  the  Fuller  at  Antioch;  he  ordered  all  his  subjects  to  an- 
athematize the  Tome  of  Pope  Leo  I  and  the  Council  of  Chalcedon. 
Five  hundred  bishops  obeyed.  Then  Zeno  came  back  with  an 
army  ;  Basiliskos  was  defeated  and  murdered  (476) .  The  situa- 
tion was  again  reversed.  Salophakiolos  was  restored  at  Alex- 
andria ;  John  Kodonatos  became  Catholic  Patriarch  of  Antioch. 
But  in  Egypt  the  Copts  set  up  Peter  Mongos,3  former  archdeacon 
of  Timothy  the  Cat,  as  rival  Patriarch.  At  Antioch,  Stephen  II 
succeeded  John  Kodonatos.  They  murdered  him  in  479.  Then 
came  Stephen  III  and  Kalandion ;  while  all  the  time  Peter  the 
Fuller  had  the  allegiance  of  the  Monophysites,  and  waited  to  be 

1  Expositio  Liturgies,  ed.  H.  Labourt  (Corp.  Script.  Christ.  Orient.  ; 
Scriptores  Syri,  ii.  Tom.  93),  Latin  version,  pp.  43-45. 

2  Theophanes  Confessor :  Chronogr.  (P.G.  cviii.  292)  ;  Liberatus  :  Brev. 
xviii.  (P.L.  xlviii.  1026-1030). 

3  M0770S,  stammerer.  Timothy  the  Cat  died  just  at  this  time  (July  31, 
477)  >  cf-  Gutschmid  :  Verzeichnis  der  Patriarchen  v.  Alexandrien  (in  his 
Kleine  Schriften,  Leipzig,  1890,  ii.  p.  453). 


MONOPHYSISM  193 

restored.  In  481  Salophakiolos  died.  The  Copts  clamoured  for 
Peter  Mongos  ;  but  a  Catholic,  John  Talaia,  was  elected.  During 
these  disturbances  Pope  Simplicius  (463-483)  upheld  firmly  his 
own  supreme  authority  x  and  the  faith  of  Chalcedon. 

5.  The  Acacian  Schism  (484-519) 

But  the  Emperor  Zeno  had  learned  in  Basiliskos'  rebellion  the 
strength  of  the  Monophysite  party.  He  now  began  that  fatal 
policy  of  conciliating  it,  which  did  not  succeed,  which  brought 
distress  to  all  faithful  Catholics  and  a  schism  with  Rome.  In 
this  policy  he  was  encouraged  by  Acacius,  Patriarch  of  Constanti- 
nople (471-489).  Peter  Mongos,  having  fled  to  the  capital  when 
John  Talaia  was  elected,  persuaded  Acacius  and  Zeno  that  his 
party,  the  Monophysites,  would  give  endless  trouble  to  the  Govern- 
ment unless  they  were  met  half  way.  So  in  482,  Zeno  published 
a  decree  called  Henotikon,2  which  was  meant  to  satisfy  all  parties. 
It  was  drawn  up  by  Acacius,  helped  by  Peter  Mongos.  The 
Henotikon  declared  as  symbols  of  the  faith  the  creed  of  Nicaea- 
Constantinople,  the  twelve  anathemas  of  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and 
the  decrees  of  Ephesus  only.  Nestorius  and  Eutyches  3  are  both 
condemned.  The  expression  "  two  natures  "  is  avoided ;  our 
Lord  is  said  in  general  to  be  "  one,  not  two."  This  completely 
ignores  Chalcedon.  Worse,  the  decree  contains  the  phrase : 
"  Whoever  thinks  or  has  thought  otherwise,  whether  at  Chalcedon 
or  at  any  other  synod,  is  excommunicate."  4  Everyone  was  to 
sign  this  Imperial  "  Unification,"  and  everyone  was  to  be  satisfied. 
Naturally,  no  one  was  satisfied.  The  Monophysites  wanted  a 
categorical  rejection  of  Chalcedon,  an  acceptance  of  the  decrees  of 

1  His  letter  of  January  9,  476,  to  Acacius  of  Constantinople  says  :  "  In  his 
(Leo  I's)  successors  this  same  standard  of  the  apostolic  teaching  remains. 
To  them  the  Lord  gave  the  care  of  the  whole  flock  ...  he  said  that  what 
is  bound  by  their  sentence  on  earth  cannot  be  loosened  in  heaven  "  (Thiel: 
Ep.  Rom.  Pont.  p.  178). 

2  'Ei>utik6i/,  unification. 

3  We  have  seen  that  the  Monophysites  were  quite  willing  to  condemn 
Eutyches  (pp.  168-169). 

4  The  text  of  the  Henotikon  is  in  Evagrius :  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  14 
(P.  G.  lxxxvi.  2620-2625),  and  Liberatus :  Breviarium,  17  (P.L.  lxviii.  1023- 
io24). 

13 


i94        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Dioscor's  Robber-Synod  ;  and  no  Catholic  could  accept  this  com- 
promise or  sign  a  document  which  treated  the  last  general  council 
in  such  a  way.  Zeno's  Henotikon  is  one  of  many  attempts  to 
shelve  a  hotly  disputed  question  instead  of  solving  it  ;  such 
attempts  are  always  doomed  to  failure. 

But  there  were  time-servers  willing  to  please  the  Emperor, 
whatever  he  demanded.  Peter  Mongos  willingly  signed  the 
Henotikon,  in  whose  composition  he  had  played  a  great  part. 
He  was  restored  to  Alexandria  by  the  Government ;  John  Talaia, 
the  Catholic  Patriarch,  was  driven  out  and  fled  to  Rome.  Here 
he  became  the  friend  and  counsellor  of  several  Popes,  notably  of 
Gelasius  I  (492-496). 1  Mongos  imposed  the  Henotikon  on  the 
clergy  of  Alexandria.  But  a  number  of  extreme  Monophysites 
(chiefly  monks)  would  not  accept  it  from  their  side,  renounced  his 
jurisdiction,  and  became  the  sect  of  the  Akephaloi2  So  also  in 
the  Patriarchates  of  Antioch  (where  Peter  the  Fuller  now  came 
back  in  triumph,  485)  and  Jerusalem  (where  Martyrios,  Juvenal's 
successor,  accepted  it)  the  Henotikon  was  imposed  on  equally 
reluctant  Catholics  and  Monophysites. 

From  all  sides  complaints  came  to  the  Pope.  At  this  time 
Felix  II  (or  III,3  483-492)  reigned.  He  sent  legates  to  Con- 
stantinople to  maintain  Chalcedon  and  restore  the  deposed 
Catholic  bishops.  But  Zeno  threw  them  into  prison,  and  then 
bribed  them  to  accept  Mongos's  restoration.  Just  then  John 
Talaia  arrived  in  Rome,  and  was  able  to  report  to  the  Pope  all 
that  went  on  in  the  East.  In  484  Felix  held  a  Roman  synod  and 
excommunicated  Acacius  of  Constantinople  as  responsible  for  the 
intrusion  of  Mongos  and  the  Fuller,  and  as  the  author  of  the 
Henotikon.  Once  again  we  see  Rome  upholding  the  faith  of  a 
genera]  council  without  compromise  against  the  secular  Govern- 
ment, while  practically  the  whole  East  tamely  accepted  the 
tyrant's  interference  in  a  question  of  dogma. 

1  See  "  John  Talaia  "  in  the  Catholic  Encyclopedia.  For  his  possible  in- 
fluence on  the  development  of  the  Roman  Liturgy  see  Fortescue  :  The  Mass 
pp.  164-165. 

2  'AK<z<pa\oi,  "  without  a  head." 

3  The  numbers  of  all  Popes  Felix  are  given  differently,  according  as  one 
does  or  does  not  count  Felix,  the  anti-pope  in  the  time  of  Liberius  (who  held 
the  see  from  357  to  365),  as  Felix  II. 


MONOPHYSISM  195 

Acacius  answered  by  striking  the  Pope's  name  from  his  diptychs.1 
We  have  come  to  the  great  "  Acacian  schism/'  the  most  famous 
of  the  temporary  schisms  of  the  Byzantine  Church,  which  prepared 
the  way  all  too  well  for  the  great  schism  of  Photius.2  It  lasted 
thirty-five  years.  Rome  would  never  accept  the  compromising 
Henotikon.  Acacius  died  in  schism  (489)  ;  so  did  Peter  Mongos 
(490),  Peter  the  Fuller  (488),  and  the  Emperor  Zeno  (491). 
But  Zeno's  successor,  Anastasius  I  (491-518),  maintained  the 
Henotikon,  and  the  Eastern  bishops  accepted  it.  After  Acacius 
of  Constantinople  came  Fra vitas  or  Fla vitas  (489-490) .  He  was 
anxious  to  return  to  communion  with  the  Pope,  but  he  would  not 
break  with  Mongos  nor  reject  the  Henotikon  ;  so  no  union  could 
be  established.  Euphemius  of  Constantinople  (490-496)  was  still 
more  disposed  to  end  the  schism.  He  restored  the  Pope's  name 
to  his  diptychs,  even  gave  up  Mongos,  but  could  not  make  up 
his  mind  to  renounce  the  Henotikon,  or  to  admit  the  error  of  his 
two  predecessors.  Macedonius  II  of  Constantinople  (496-511) 
was  made  to  sign  the  Henotikon  at  his  accession.3  Now  we  see 
the  result  of  these  compromises.  The  Emperor  Anastasius  had 
sworn  at  his  coronation  to  maintain  the  faith  of  Chalcedon  ;  he 
began  merely  by  continuing  Zeno's  compromising  policy  ;  but 
gradually  the  tendency  of  all  compromises  to  revert  to  one 
extreme  or  the  other  made  itself  felt.  Anastasius  already  had  all 
the  West,  staunch  upholder  of  Chalcedon,  against  him  ;  he 
gradually  slipped  into  the  other  extreme  and  became,  in  the 
latter  part  of  his  reign,  frankly  a  Monophysite.  Timothy  I  of 
Constantinople  (511-518)  was  simply  a  Monophysite,  hand  in 
glove  with  the  Monophysites  of  Egypt  and  Syria. 

1  Gustav  Kriiger  considers  that  this  was  "  the  only  right  thing  to  do  " 
(Herzog  and  Hauck  :  Realencyklopadie,  xiii.  p.  382,  1.  57).  I  suppose  it 
was,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Byzantine  Patriarchs.  Nearly  always 
they  prefer  the  Emperor's  favour  to  the  Catholic  faith  ;  so  they  follow  their 
masters,  condemn  what  they  themselves  have  defined,  define  what  they 
have  condemned,  as  the  wind  blows  from  the  court.  This  saved  them  a 
lot  of  trouble.     But  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  anyone  can  think  it  dignified. 

2  Orthodox  Eastern  Church,  p.  84. 

3  Macedonius  II  did  gradually  come  round  to  the  Catholic  position. 
But  the  Emperor  had  now  taken  up  Monophysism  definitely  ;  so  Mace- 
donius was  deposed  and  banished  (511),  and  Timothy  I  was  intruded  in 
his  place. 


196        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Meanwhile,  at  Alexandria,  after  the  death  of  Peter  Mongos  (490), 
a  line  of  Monophysite  Patriarchs  followed.  It  seemed  as  if,  since 
John  Talaia  had  fled  (p.  194),  Egypt  was  to  remain  definitely 
Monophysite. 

At  Antioch  and  Jerusalem  the  situation  was  more  complicated. 
Peter  the  Fuller  of  Antioch  (f  488)  had  a  Monophysite  successor, 
Palladius  (490-498)  ;  then  came  Flavian  II  (498-511).  He  had 
once  signed  the  Henotikon  ;  but  later  he  returned  to  the  faith  of 
Chalcedon  and  became  firmly  Catholic.  The  Monophysites  were 
very  strong  in  his  Patriarchate,  and  they  succeeded  in  driving  him 
out.  In  the  east  of  Syria  especially  the  Monophysites  were  a 
power,  as  the  opponents  of  Nestorianism.  Nestorianism  was  now 
becoming  a  formal  heretical  sect,  as  we  saw  in  Chap.  Ill  (p.  75). 
Its  opponents  in  that  part  of  the  world  naturally  gravitated 
towards  the  other  extreme,  considering  Chalcedon  to  be  a  con- 
cession to  their  chief  enemies.  We  are  coming  to  the  situation 
already  noted  (p.  77)  when  the  Eastern  part  of  Syria  was  divided 
practically  between  Nestorians  and  Monophysites,  neither  of 
whom  had  a  good  word  to  say  for  Chalcedon.  So  from  the 
vehement  anti-Nestorians  of  the  East  came  Syrian  Monophysite 
leaders.  Two  of  these  are  especially  famous.  Philoxenos  or 
Aksnaya  1  was  a  Persian  from  Tahul  by  Beth  Germai.  He  had 
been  a  disciple  of  Ibas  at  Edessa.  Then  he  changed — not  only  gave 
up  Nestorianism,  but  became  the  most  ardent  of  Monophysites. 
Barhebraeus  says  that  it  was  he  who  persuaded  the  Emperor  Zeno 
to  close  the  school  of  Edessa  in  489  and  to  expel  all  Nestorians 
from  the  empire  (p.  78). 2  Peter  the  Fuller  made  him  Bishop  of 
Hierapolis  (Mabug,  near  the  Euphrates)  in  485.  Philoxenos  is  a 
famous  Syriac  writer  and  authority  for  liturgical  matters  (p.  140, 
n.  3).  He  also  became  a  fierce  enemy  of  his  Patriarch,  when 
Flavian  II  was  orthodox.  He  adopted  the  usual  Monophysite 
plan  of  calling  everyone  who  accepted  Chalcedon  a  Nestorian.3 

An  even  more  famous  Monophysite  was  Severus,  a  monk  from 
Pisidia,  at  first  in  Constantinople.  He  was  always  a  most  vehe- 
ment opponent  of  Chalcedon.     He  became  a  friend  of  the  Emperor 

1  Xenaias.  2  Barhebraeus  :   Chron.  EccL,  ed.  cit.  iii.  56. 

3  See  his  letter  to  the  monks  of  a  monastery  near  Edessa,  written  in  512, 
quoted  by  Assemani  :   Bibl.  Orient,  ii.  15. 


MONOPHYSISM  197 

Anastasius  II,  was  the  chief  cause  of  the  Emperor's  acceptance  of 
definite  Monophysism  and  of  the  deposition  of  Macedonius  II 
(p.  195).  Severus  tried  to  introduce  the  famous  addition  to  the 
Trisagion,  made  by  Peter  the  Fuller  (p.  190)  at  Constantinople. 
But  the  population  of  the  capital  was  still  orthodox  ;  it  suspected 
Antiochene  formulas.  So  there  was  a  riot  which  prevented  his 
plan  and  showed  already  that  the  Government's  Monophysite 
policy  was  not  popular. 

At  Jerusalem,  after  the  Monophysite  Theodosius  was  expelled, 
Juvenal  was  restored  (453),  and  reigned  till  his  death  in  458.  Then 
came  Anastasius  (458-478) ;  Martyrios  (478-486),  who  signed  the 
Henotikon  (p.  194) ;  Salustius  (486-494)  ;  and  Elias  (494-513). 
Elias  was  Catholic  and  held  with  Flavian  II  of  Antioch.  Severus 
at  Constantinople  wanted  the  Emperor  to  summon  a  synod  which 
should  finally  revoke  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon.  But  Flavian 
and  Elias  succeeded  in  preventing  this.  The  fall  of  both  was 
now  arranged  by  the  Monophysites.  Philoxenos  of  Hierapolis 
appeared  at  the  capital  at  intervals  (499  and  506),  and  further 
fortified  his  party.  The  Emperor  was  completely  won  by  the 
heretics  ;  so  they  secured  their  triumph  all  over  the  East.  At 
Constantinople  Timothy  I,  their  devoted  partisan  (p.  195),  already 
reigned  ;  in  Egypt  John  II  (p.  219)  was  also  a  Monophysite  and 
need  not  be  interfered  with.  But  Antioch  and  Jerusalem  must 
be  purged  of  their  Chalcedonian  Patriarchs.  So  in  512  Philoxenos 
held  a  synod,  deposed  Flavian  of  Antioch  and  made  Severus 
Patriarch  instead.  Then,  between  them,  they  drove  Elias  from 
Jerusalem  and  set  up  John,  Bishop  of  Sebaste,  a  Monophysite 
(John  III  of  Jerusalem,  513-524),  as  his  successor.  Now  all  the 
Christian  East,  as  represented  by  its  Patriarchs,  was  solidly 
heretical.  Its  leader  was  Severus,  now  of  Antioch.  So  much  was 
he  a  recognized  chief  that  "  Severian  "  is  the  usual  name  for  one 
group  of  Monophysites.1     None  of  these  people  now  cared  to  make 

1  Severus  was  not  an  extreme  Monophysite.  His  attitude  is  rather  that 
of  a  compromise  on  the  lines  of  the  Henotikon.  But  he  was  a  determined 
opponent  of  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon,  thinking  them  to  be  nothing  but 
revived  Nestorianism.  He  was  also  a  forerunner  of  the  later  Monothe- 
letes,  inasmuch  as  he  (apparently  first)  invented  and  defended  the  expression 
that  in  Christ  there  is  one  composite  Divine-human  operation  (pia  dtavUpticr) 
hepyeta).      See  p.  210. 


198   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

any  approaches  to  Rome.  The  Acacian  schism  reached  its  climax  ; 
the  separation  between  the  Catholic  West  and  the  Monophysite 
East  was  complete.  But  there  were  Catholics  in  the  East  too. 
During  all  the  thirty-five  years  of  the  Acacian  schism  the 
"  Akoimetoi " x  monks  of  Constantinople  broke  with  the 
heretical  Patriarchs,  kept  the  faith  of  Chalcedon  and  were  in 
union  with  the  Pope.  And  frcm  all  parts  persecuted  Catholics 
(Severus  persecuted  fiercely),  monks,  unjustly  deposed  bishops, 
sent  appeals  to  the  chief  Patriarch  in  the  distant  Western  land. 
Pope  Gelasius  I  (492-496),  one  of  the  great  successors  of  St. 
Peter,  made  advances  and  tried  to  heal  the  schism,  but  he 
could  not  compromise  with  Monophysism.  Pope  Anastasius 
II  (496-498)  and  his  successor  Symmachus  (498-514)  were 
equally  unsuccessful.  Then  came  Hormisdas  (514-523),  who 
was  to  heal  the  breach.  Just  when  Monophysism  had  triumphed 
throughout  the  East,  when  the  heretics  had  established  them- 
selves firmly  on  all  the  Patriarchal  thrones,  the  whole  situation 
changed,  as  it  does  in  the  Eastern  Empire,  by  the  death  of  the 
Emperor.  Anastasius  II  died  suddenly  in  518.  He  was 
succeeded  by  Justin  I  (518-527),  already  under  the  influence 
of  his  nephew  the  future  great  Emperor  Justinian  I.  Both  were 
Catholic  ;  as  we  have  seen  (p.  197),  the  people  of  Constantinople, 
too,  were  eager  for  the  restoration  of  the  faith  of  Chalcedon. 

So,  as  soon  as  Justin  reigns,  there  is  a  complete  reaction  ;  the 
Monophysites  are  expelled,  Chalcedon  is  again  accepted  by  the 
Eastern  Church,  union  with  Rome  is  restored,  the  Acacian  schism 
is  ended.  The  Emperor  and  the  people  of  Constantinople  force 
the  Byzantine  Patriarch,  John  II  (518-520),  who  succeeded 
Timothy  I,  to  subscribe  to  Chalcedon  and  to  excommunicate 
Severus.  Severus,  guilty  not  only  of  heresy  but  of  having 
persecuted  Catholics,  of  having  shed  orthodox  blood,  was  deposed, 
and  by  flight  escaped  the  death  which  probably  awaited  him.  He 
came  to  Alexandria,  the  one  place  still  held  by  his  co-religionists. 
After  one  more  vain  attempt  to  assert  his  cause  at  Constantinople 
(in  533),  after  being  again  excommunicated  in  536,  he  died  in 

1  'A/coi'ur/Toj,  "  sleepless."  This  does  not  mean  that  they  never  went 
to  sleep.  It  was  a  monastery  which  had  the  special  rule  of  keeping  up 
continual  prayers  in  its  church,  by  successive  relays  of  monks. 


MONOPHYSISM  199 

Egypt  in  538. 1  A  Catholic,  Paul,  became  Patriarch  of  Antioch 
(519-521),  and  began  persecuting  Monophysites,  just  as  Severus 
had  persecuted  Catholics.  At  Jerusalem  John  III,  who  was 
orthodox,  was  made  Patriarch  (518-524).  Only  Egypt  under 
Timothy  III  of  Alexandria  (518-538)  remained  Monophysite. 

Then  reunion  with  Rome  was  arranged  easily.  Pope  Hor- 
misdas  sent  legates  to  Constantinople  with  his  famous  formula. 
The  Formula  of  Hormisdas  is  one  of  the  classical  evidences  of 
Papal  authority  in  the  early  Church.  It  not  only  condemns 
Nestorius,  Eutyches,  Dioscor,  Acacius  and  the  other  Monophysite 
leaders,  insists  on  the  Tome  of  Leo  I  and  on  Chalcedon,  but  it 
declares  in  the  plainest  language  possible  the  supreme  authority 
of  the  Pope  and  his  right  finally  to  define  questions  of  faith.  The 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  the  Emperor  and  all  the  Eastern 
Patriarchs  and  bishops  (except  in  Egypt)  sign  it.  The  Pope's 
name  is  restored  to  the  Byzantine  diptychs  ;  on  Easter  Day  519 
union  between  East  and  West  is  restored.2 

But  the  end  of  this  wearisome  Monophysite  quarrel  has  not  yet 
come.  For  another  century  and  a  half  it  was  still  to  disturb  the 
Eastern  Church  ;  many  more  attempts  at  reconciling  the  still 
powerful  Monophysite  party  were  to  be  made,  and  a  large  number 
of  other  heresies  were  to  grow  out  of  the  main  one.  Egypt  was 
still  the  stronghold  of  Monophysism  ;  the  more  than  half  re- 
bellious population  of  that  richest  province  of  the  empire  was 
always  a  grave  danger. 

6.  The  Three  Chapters  (544-554) 

The  great  Justinian  I  (527-565),  statesman,  lawgiver,  conqueror, 
builder  of  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Wisdom,3  occurs  in  our  story 

1  Severus  of  Al-Ushmunain,  the  Monophysite  historian  of  the  Copts, 
naturally  glories  in  the  memory  of  "  the  Patriarch  Severus,  the  excellent, 
clothed  with  light,  occupant  of  the  see  of  Antioch,  who  became  a  horn  of 
salvation  to  the  orthodox  (i.e.  Monophysite)  Church,  and  who  sat  upon  the 
throne  of  the  great  Ignatius."  History  of  the  Patriarchs  of  the  Coptic  Church 
of  Alexandria,  ed.  B.  Evetts  (Patrol.  Orient,  i.  449).  See  also  Zachary 
Scholasticus  :  Life  of  Severus,  in  F.  Nau  :  Opuscules  Maronites,  ii.  (Paris, 
1900).     J.  Lebon  :  Le  Monophysisme  severien  (Louvain,  1909). 

2  For  the  formula  of  Hormisdas  see  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  pp.  84-86. 

3  There  is  now  a  tendency  to  belittle  Justinian.  It  is,  of  course,  always 
possible  to  say  that  the  work  done  by  a  mighty  sovereign  is  really  due  t9 


200    THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

less  favourably  as  a  compromiser  with  Monophysism.  He  began 
well.  As  soon  as  he  came  to  the  throne  he  commanded  acceptance 
of  the  four  councils  (Nicaea,  Constantinople  I,  Ephesus,  Chalcedon) 
from  all  his  subjects.  Even  in  Egypt  he  tried  to  establish  the 
orthodox  faith.  When  the  Monophysite  Timothy  III  died  in 
538,  Justinian  insisted  on  the  appointment  of  a  Catholic  successor, 
Paul  (538-542).  But  his  wife  led  him  astray.  In  523  he  had 
married  Theodora.  She  had  been  a  public  dancing  lady,  and 
was  always  a  strong  Monophysite.  The  Empress  Theodora,  who 
takes  a  prominent  place  in  our  story  (she  secured  a  Monophysite 
hierarchy  for  Syria ;  see  p.  324) ,  is  a  very  strange  figure.  Procopius 
of  Caesarea,  the  chronicler  of  the  scandals  of  this  time,1  gives  .an 
appalling  account  of  her  career ;  Gibbon  accepts  this  with  his 
usual  sneer.2  Later  writers  have  some  doubt  as  to  whether  we 
are  to  accept  all  Procopius's  foul  anecdotes  with  confidence.3  In 
any  case,  the  lady  who  faces  her  husband  in  the  mosaics  of  San 
Vitale  at  Ravenna  had  a  career  romantic  rather  than  commend- 
able. Perhaps  the  strangest  thing  about  her  is  that  this  ardent 
Monophysite  of  not  even  doubtful  reputation  is  now  a  saint 
in  the  Orthodox  Calendar — so  easy  for  princesses  is  the  Byzantine 
road  to  heaven.4 

his  good  fortune  in  finding  statesmen  and  generals  to  do  it  for  him.  It 
remains  true  that  Justinian's  reign  is  the  most  glorious  episode  of  the 
Empire  in  the  East,  that  he  stands  out  as  one  of  the  five  or  six  mightiest, 
most  brilliant  rulers  in  the  history  of  the  world.  Dante  puts  him  in  the 
heaven  of  Mercury  :  "  Cesare  fui,  e  son  Giustiniano,"  makes  him  confess 
his  temporary  Monophysism  : 

"  E  prima  ch'io  all  'ovra  fossi  attento, 
Una  natura  in  Cristo  esser,  non  piue, 
Credeva,  e  di  tal  fede  era  contento," 
and  his  conversion  by  Pope  Agapitus  (Paradiso,  vi.  10-21).     Gibbon  has 
little  respect  for  his  victories,  but  cannot  withhold  his  admiration  for  his 
legislation  :    "  the  laws  of  Justinian  still  command  the  respect  or  obedience 
of  independent  nations  "  (Decline  and  Fall,  chap,  xliv.,  ed.  Bury,  vol.  iv. 
p.  441). 

1  Secret  History  (ed.  Dindorf,  Bonn,  1 833-1 838).  See  Gibbon,  chap.  xl. 
(ed.  cit.  vol.  iv.  pp.  210-218). 

2  "  If  the  creed  of  Theodora  had  not  been  tainted  with  heresy,  her  exem- 
plary devotion  might  have  atoned,  in  the  opinion  of  her  contemporaries, 
for  pride,  avarice  and  cruelty  "  (ib.  p.  217). 

3  So  Charles  Diehl  :    Figures  Byzantines,  i.  (Paris,  1906),  51-53. 

4  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  p.  104.  For  Theodora's  strange  career  see  Diehl  : 
Thdodora,  Jmperatrice  de  Byzance  (Paris,  1904). 


MONOPHYSISM  201 

Theodora,  then,  always  faithful  to  her  side,  persuaded  Justinian 
to  attempt  yet  another  colloquy  between  Catholics  and  Mono- 
physites,  with  the  hope  of  reconciling  them.  This  took  place  at 
Constantinople  in  533.  Severus,  formerly  of  Antioch,  came  from 
Egypt  as  head  of  the  Monophysites.  But  they  gained  nothing 
from  this.  Anthymos  I  of  Constantinople  (536)  was  suspect  of 
leanings  towards  the  heresy;  so  he  was  deposed,  and  Mennas 
(536-552)  succeeded  him.  Mennas  was  firm  for  Chalcedon,  and 
drove  all  Monophysites  from  the  city. 

During  Justinian's  reign  the  so-called  Theopaschite  dispute 
broke  out  again.  This  is  the  question  whether  one  may  say 
"  God  suffers,"  x  and  whether  Peter  the  Fuller's  addition  to  the 
Trisagion  be  lawful.  We  have  explained  the  issue  above  (pp. 
190-192).  Pope  Hormisdas  in  521  declared  the  formula  not  in 
itself  heretical,  but  dangerous  as  suspect  of  Monophysism  and 
because  it  was  supposed  to  contradict  Chalcedon.  Instead  of 
"One  of  the  Trinity  suffered  "  he  proposed  the  form  :  "One  of 
the  three  Divine  Persons  suffered  in  the  flesh,"  which  leads  to 
no  equivocation.  There  was  much  agitation  about  this  question. 
The  formula  of  Peter  the  Fuller  became  yet  another  of  the  many 
suggestions  made  by  people  weary  of  the  long  strife,  who  hoped 
thereby  to  go  a  little  way  towards  conciliating  Monophysites. 
At  last  in  533  Justinian  published  an  edict  declaring  as  the 
lawful  formula  :  "  The  incarnate  and  crucified  Son  of  God  is 
one  of  the  holy  and  consubstantial  Trinity."  2  This  is  plainly 
correct.  Justinian  sent  to  Pope  John  II  (533-535)  asking  him  to 
approve  it ;  he  did  so  in  534. 

The  next  incident  is  the  deplorable  story  of  Pope  Vigilius. 
Theodora  thought  to  gain  the  heart  of  Chalcedonian  orthodoxy, 
Rome  itself,  for  her  heresy.     When  Pope  Agapetus  (535-536) 

1    6  Oebs  irdax^u 

"  'O  (rapKcodtls  ko.1  (Travpeodels  vths  rov  deov  efs  iarri  tt)s  aylas  koI  6/xoovaiov 
rpia86s.  The  modern  man  naturally  asks  what  this  kind  of  thing 
has  to  do  with  the  Government.  We  should  be  very  much  amused  if 
the  British  Government  were  to  make  a  law  telling  us  what  formulas 
we  may  use  concerning  the  Holy  Trinity.  But  in  Byzantine  times  we 
must  be  prepared  for  this  kind  of  thing.  The  Emperors  are  always  tell  ng 
their  subjects  what  mayor  may  not  be  believed.  If  such  laws  are  correct, 
Rome  accepts  them ;  if  not,  she  resists  them  fiercely,  as  she  resisted  the 
Henotikon. 


202    THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

died,  she  promised  the  papal  throne  to  a  Roman  deacon,  Vigilius, 
on  condition  that  he  made  concessions  towards  Monophysism. 
The  Imperial  general  Belisarius,  then  fighting  Goths  in  Italy,  was 
to  secure  his  succession.  Vigilius  promised  all  the  Empress  asked. 
But  Silverius  (536-540)  was  lawfully  elected  Pope.  In  536 
Belisarius  seized  Silverius  and  sent  him  in  exile  to  Patara,  in  Asia 
Minor,  under  pretext  of  his  treasonable  intercourse  with  the  Goths. 
Vigilius  was  schmismatically  ordained  Pope.  So  he  starts  his 
career  as  an  anti-pope.  But  in  540,  Silverius  being  dead,  he  is 
accepted  by  the  lawful  electors  and  begins  his  legitimate  but 
unhappy  reign  (540-555).  He  had  made  promises  to  Theodora  ; 
but  now  as  Pope  he  finds  the  Papacy,  the  strong  Catholic  feeling 
of  the  West — shall  we  say  the  Providence  of  God,  who  will  not 
allow  the  chief  See  to  lead  others  into  heresy — too  strong  for  him. 
In  all  Vigilius's  miserable  vacillation  he  never  really  compromised 
with  Monophysism.  Pitiful  as  his  figure  appears,  scandalously  as 
he  neglected  his  duty  of  confirming  his  brethren  by  a  firm  line 
held  consistently,  he  did  not,  he  could  not,  make  shipwreck  of  the 
whole  Catholic  system  by  defining  heresy.  The  issue  was  no 
question  of  faith,  but  of  the  opportuneness  of  casting  opprobrium  on 
men  long  dead,  in  the  hope  once  more  of  conciliating  Monophysites. 
Vigilius's  story  is  that  of  the  Three  Chapters.  Theodore  Askidas, 
Metropolitan  of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  and  others  thought  they 
could  perhaps  reconcile  these  stubborn  heretics  by  a  new  pro- 
nouncement which  should  make  it  quite  clear  that  to  accept 
Chalcedon  did  not  mean  becoming  a  Nestorian.  The  great 
"  Eastern  "  doctors,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  Diodore  of  Tarsus 
and  their  school,  were  the  people  whose  memory  Monophysites 
specially  hated.  These  were,  they  said,  the  masters  from  whom 
Nestorius  had  imbibed  his  poisonous  ideas.  So  Theodore 
Askidas  persuaded  Justinian  to  publish  an  edict  condemning 
three  documents,  alleged  to  be  Nestorian.  These  documents, 
the  famous  Three  Chapters,1  are :  (1)  the  person  and  writings  of 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  (p.  60)  ;  (2)  the  writings  of  Theodoret 
of  Cyrus  in  his  Nestorian  days  (p.  166) ;  (3)  the  Nestorian  letter 
of  Ibas  to  Maris  (p.  76).  Let  it  be  understood  at  once  that,  as 
far  as  our  faith  is  concerned,  a  Catholic  could  condemn  these  three 


MONOPHYSISM  203 

chapters  to  any  extent.  All  three  are  really  Nestorian.  But  it 
was  a  question  whether  there  was  sufficient  reason,  after  about  a 
century,  to  revive  the  memories  of  persons  long  dead,  in  order 
to  curse  them.  The  Councils  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon  had 
declared  the  faith  quite  plainly  enough.  Why  not  let  Theodore 
and  Theodoret  and  Ibas  alone  ?  So  while  the  East  accepted 
this  condemnation,  as  it  accepted  all  the  Emperor  did,  the  West 
was  indignant  and  saw  in  this  new  edict  yet  another  veiled 
concession  to  Monophysism.  And  the  Pope  wavered  helplessly 
between  the  two. 

In  544  Justinian  published  his  edict  condemning  the  Three 
Chapters.  As  usual,  all  bishops  were  to  sign  it.  Mennas  of 
Constantinople  (536-552)  signed,  under  the  express  condition 
that  no  attack  against  Chalcedon  was  meant  and  that  the  Pope 
should  sign  too.  Otherwise  his  consent  was  not  to  count.  The 
other  Eastern  Patriarchs  signed.  But  all  the  West  (where  these 
condemned  persons  were  no  longer  remembered,  where  there  was 
grave  suspicion  of  the  Byzantine  Government's  edicts)  refused  to 
accept  the  condemnation.  Justinian  was  naturally  most  anxious 
to  obtain  the  Pope's  consent.  He  implored  him  to  come  to 
Constantinople  to  examine  the  matter.  Vigilius,  after  much 
delay,  very  unwillingly  came  in  547.  Then  begins  the  unhappy 
tale  of  his  indecision  and  repeated  change  of  mind.  He  was  torn 
between  two  tendencies.  On  the  one  hand,  he  knew  that  there 
was  no  intrinsic  reason  why  he  should  not  condemn  the  works  of 
these  long-dead  Nestorians  ;  Justinian  was  doing  everything 
possible  to  force  the  Pope  to  do  so ;  all  the  East  saw  in  this  measure 
the  one  chance  of  reconciling  the  Monophysites,  of  putting  an  end 
to  the  disastrous  turmoil  which  had  troubled  the  Church  already 
for  a  hundred  years.  On  the  other  hand,  Vigilius  knew  that  his 
own  Western  bishops  were  fiercely  opposed  to  the  condemnation 
of  the  Three  Chapters,  that  if  he  condemned  them  he  would  be 
looked  upon  as  a  traitor  by  his  own  best  friends  ;  no  doubt,  too,  he 
inherited  the  traditional  Roman  suspicion  of  Byzantine  Emperor- 
made  theology.  As  a  further  excuse  for  his  want  of  decision,  we 
must  remember  that  he  was  being  himself  badly  persecuted  to 
make  him  accept  the  condemnation.  At  first  he  refused  to 
condemn  the  chapters.     Justinian  then  began  treating  him  as  a 


204   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

prisoner.  Vigilius  is  reported  to  have  said  a  word  which  shows  a 
fine  sense  of  the  dignity  of  his  See,  of  the  difference  between  the 
mighty  throne  of  Old  Rome  and  its  present  feeble  occupant : 
"  Even  if  you  imprison  me,  you  cannot  take  the  Apostle  Peter 
prison  er."  Then  followed  conferences  with  the  Byzantine 
bishops.  On  April  n,  548,  Vigilius  published  a  Iudicatum  in 
which,  with  a  most  careful  insistence  on  the  faith  of  Chalcedon,  he 
condemned  the  Three  Chapters.  At  once,  as  he  might  have 
foreseen,  the  Western  bishops  protested  indignantly  against  this 
act.  Dacius  of  Milan,  Facundus  of  Hermiane  and  the  Africans 
were  most  angry  with  what  they  considered  the  Pope's  treasonable 
concession  to  the  Byzantine  court.  From  now  we  have  the 
curious  spectacle  (unique  in  Church  history)  of  the  Pope  and  the 
Eastern  bishops  on  one  side,  opposed  to  the  West.  Justinian 
than  demanded  the  usual  remedy  for  such  quarrels,  a  general 
council.  Vigilius  agreed  and  meanwhile  withdrew  his  Iudicatum. 
But  most  of  the  Western  bishops  refused  to  attend  the  council. 
Now  Justinian  by  his  own  authority  issued  a  new  decree,  again 
condemning  the  Chapters  (551).  The  Pope  was  very  indignant 
at  this  ;  Theodore  Askidas,  the  original  author  of  the  whole 
quarrel  (p.  202),  began  excommunicating  people  who  would  not 
accept  the  Emperor's  edict,  so  Vigilius  excommunicated  him. 
The  Emperor  tried  to  seize  the  Pope,  but  he  took  sanctuary  in  a 
church  and  there  withdrew  his  consent  to  the  council,  excommuni- 
cating all  who  took  part  in  it.  However,  a  council  met  on  May 
5,  553,  at  Constantinople.  Only  165  bishops  attended  it.  Mennas 
of  Constantinople  was  just  dead  (August  552)  ;  his  successor 
Eutychius  (552-565,  577-582)  presided,  after  great  efforts  had  been 
made,  in  vain,  to  persuade  the  Pope  to  do  so.  Vigilius  sent  to  the 
council  a  Constitution,  which  was  another  attempt  at  compromise. 
In  this  he  condemned  sixty  propositions  taken  from  the  works  of 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  and  forbade  any  other  condemnation. 
The  council  refused  to  accept  this,  condemned  the  Three  Chapters 
as  the  Emperor  had  done,  authorized  the  formula,  "  One  of  the 
Trinity  suffered,"  and  incidentally  declared  Origen  a  heretic.1 

1  The  question  of  the  doubtful  orthodoxy  of  Origen's  works  was  another 
matter  much  agitated  during  Justinian's  reign.  For  the  acts  of  this 
Synod  see  Mansi,  ix.  173-420  ;   Hefeie-Leclercq  :   op.  cit.  iii.  (1)  68-132. 


MONOPHYSISM  205 

Vigilius  then,  worn  out  with  the  long  strife,  gave  in,  confirmed  the 
acts  of  the  council,  and  condemned  the  Three  Chapters  in  another 
Constittttum  (February  23,  554).  He  now  only  wanted  to  be  set 
free  and  to  go  home.  He  was  allowed  to  do  so.  But  the  unhappy 
Pope  never  again  saw  Rome.  Worn  out  by  that  miserable  time 
in  Constantinople,  he  fell  sick  and  died,  on  his  return  journey,  at 
Syracuse  in  June  555.  Never  has  there  been  so  pitiful  a  Roman 
Pontiff  as  Vigilius. 

In  the  West  there  was  furious  opposition  to  the  council.  In 
Africa  especially,  the  bishops  thought  the  Pope  had  betrayed  the 
faith  utterly,  and  they  went  into  formal  schism  against  their  own 
Patriarch.  In  Northern  Italy,  Gaul,  Spain  and  Britain  too,  there 
was  great  indignation.  Pope  Pelagius  I  (555~56i)  accepted  the 
council,  which  his  predecessor  had  at  last  confirmed.  But  the 
provinces  of  Africa,  Illyricum,  Milan  and  Tuscany  remained  in 
schism.  This  Western  schism  as  the  final  result  of  the  Three 
Chapters  lasted  a  long  time.  Most  of  Africa  returned  to  union 
with  Rome  in  559.  Milan  came  back  in  571,  after  Justin  IPs 
Henotikon  (p.  206).  In  Illyricum  the  schism  produced  a  result 
which  lasts  till  now.  The  Metropolitan  of  Illyricum  at  Aquileia 
had  already  begun  to  assume  (without  any  warrant)  the  title 
Patriarch.1  Macedonius  of  Aquileia  (539-556),  leader  of  the 
schismatics,  took  the  title  definitely.  His  successor,  Paulinus 
(557-571),  moved  his  residence  to  Grado,  a  small  island  opposite 
Aquileia,  keeping  the  title  "  Patriarch  of  Aquileia/'  This  line 
of  bishops  returned  to  union  with  Rome  in  606.  As  generally 
happens,  they  were  allowed  to  keep  the  title  they  had  already 
used  for  so  many  years.2  Meanwhile,  their  schismatical  suffragans 
restored  the  line  of  schismatical  Patriarchs  at  Aquileia  itself. 
There  were  now  two  "  Patriarchs  " — one  of  Aquileia-Grado,  a 
Catholic,  and  a  schismatical  one  at  Aquileia  itself.  Aquileia- 
Grado  then  became  Grado  alone.  It  was  not  till  700  that  a  synod 
at  Aquileia  put  an  end  to  the  schism  altogether.  Both  lines  of 
Patriarchs  are  now  merged  in  the  title  of  Venice .     Venice  absorbed 

1  Illyricum,  on  the  frontier  of  East  and  West,  was  long  a  fruitful  source 
of  dispute  between  Rome  and  Constantinople  (Orth.  Eastern  Church,  pp. 

44-45)- 

2  We  shall  see  many  cases  of  this  among  the  Eastern  Uniate  bodies. 


206   THE   LESSER   EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Grado  in  the  15th  century.  The  city  of  Aquileia  was  overthrown 
by  an  earthquake  in  1348  ;  but  its  titular  Patriarchs  went  on  at 
Udine.  This  too  was  Venetian  territory.  So  the  Bishop  of 
Venice  took  the  title  "  Patriarch  of  Aquileia  and  Grado,"  till  in 
1751  Benedict  XIV  changed  the  old  title  to  "  Patriarch  of  Venice." 
These  Catholic  Patriarchs  of  Aquileia,  Grado,  and  then  of  Venice 
have  never  had  more  than  Metropolitan  jurisdiction.  It  is  the 
first  case  of  the  so-called  "  minor  "  Patriarchates,  mere  titles,  in  no 
way  to  be  compared  to  the  real  Patriarchates  in  the  East.1  The 
Patriarch  of  Venice  owes  his  title  to  the  schism  of  the  Three 
Chapters. 

The  Aquileian  synod  of  700  put  an  end  to  the  last  remnant  of 
this  schism  in  the  West.2  St.  Gregory  I  (590-604)  had  done  much 
to  appease  it.  So  eventually  the  Second  Council  of  Constantinople 
(553) >  which  condemned  the  Three  Chapters,  although  it  was 
oecumenical  neither  in  its  summoning  nor  its  sessions,  by  the 
Pope's  later  acceptance  and  by  universal  recognition  became  the 
fifth  general  council.3 

The  quarrel  of  the  Three  Chapters  gradually  subsided.  The 
Emperor  Justin  II  (565-578),  Justinian's  successor,  published  a 
sensible  edict  in  571  (called  Henotikon,  like  that  of  Zeno)  in  which 
he  said  that  the  faith  is  now  sufficiently  defined,  people  are  to 
stop  quarrelling  over  persons  and  syllables.4  This,  unlike  most 
Imperial  attempts  at  ending  theological  controversy,  really  does 
mark  the  end  of  the  disturbance. 

During  this  time  the  Monophysites  have  broken  up  into  a  be- 
wildering number  of  minor  sects.  Out  of  the  movement  begun 
by  Eutyches  and  Dioscor  the  strangest  complications  have  arisen. 
Severus,  ex-Patriarch  of  Antioch,  when  at  Alexandria  (p.  198)  in 
519,  expressed  his  opinion  that  the  body  of  Christ,  although  joined 
"  in   one  nature  "   with   the  Divinity,  is  corruptible  (<t>6apr6<;). 

1  See  the  Catholic  Encyclopedia,  s.v.  "  Patriarch  and  Patriarchate." 

2  See  Hefele-Leclercq  :   op.  cit.  m.  i.  141-156. 

3  The  first  and  second  Councils  of  Constantinople  (381  and  553),  counted 
as  second  and  fifth  among  general  councils,  are  both  irregular  in  the  same 
way.     Both  are  oecumenical  only  by  reason  of  a  later  acceptance. 

4  Evagrius  :  Hist.  Eccl.  v.  4  (P.G.  lxxxvi.  (2),  2793-2801).  Evagrius 
calls  it  a  irp6ypafifxa  (2793).  The  "  persons  "  are  Theodore,  Theodoret  and 
Ibas ;  the  "  syllables  "  are  the  a  of  &<pdapTos  (see  p.  207). 


MONOPHYSISM  207 

Julian,  Bishop  of  Halicarnassus,1  then  also  at  Alexandria,  more 
consistently  Monophysite,  hotly  maintained  that  it  must  be  in- 
corruptible. This  approaches  very  near  to  Docetism,  which  is 
a  fairly  reasonable  sequel  of  Monophysism.  So  Egypt  is  torn 
between  the  Phthartolatrai 2  and  the  Aphthartolatrai.3  This  con- 
troversy is  of  considerable  importance  in  the  history  of  the  Coptic 
Church.  We  shall  return  to  it  (p.  219).  Meanwhile,  as  part  of 
this  general  sketch  of  the  heresy,  we  may  note  that  Philoxenos  of 
Hierapolis  was  an  ardent  Aphthartolatres,  and  pushed  this  idea 
into  pure  Docetism  ;  our  Lord  did  not  really  suffer  pain  nor  any 
other  natural  human  weakness,  he  accepted  only  the  appearance 
of  these  things.  At  the  end  of  his  life  Justinian  was  converted  to 
Aphthartolatry,  and  wanted  to  make  all  bishops  in  his  empire 
subscribe  to  it.4  But  he  died  too  soon  (565),  so  the  Church  was 
spared  at  least  this  trouble.  The  Aphthartolatrai  broke  up  into 
Ktisolatrai,5  who  conceded  that  Christ's  body  was  created,  and 
the  Aktisnetai*  who  denied  this.  Out  of  the  Phthartolatrai  came 
the  sect  of  the  Agnoetai 7  or  Themistians,  founded  by  a  Mono- 
physite monk  of  Alexandria  called  Themistios.  These  held  that 
there  were  things  which  Christ  did  not  know.  Now  the  curious 
point  about  this  sect  is  that  it  must  abandon  the  whole  Mono- 
physite idea.  If  our  Lord  were  ignorant  of  anything,  he  must 
have  a  nature  which  could  be  ignorant,  which,  therefore,  is  not 
identified  with  the  essentially  all- knowing  Divine  nature.  So  the 
Themistians  were  excommunicated  by  Monophysite  Patriarchs 
of  Alexandria,  as  being  no  better  than  the  common  enemy,  the 
Dyophysites.  They  remain  in  Egypt  as  a  sect  till  the  8th  cen- 
tury.    A  Monophysite  at  Constantinople  in  the  time  of  Justinian, 

1  Halicarnassus  in  Asia  Minor.  Julian  had  been  deposed  for  Mono- 
physism during  the  Catholic  reaction  when  Justin  I  became  Emperor  (p.  198). 
Like  Severus  and  many  Monophysites,  he  came  to  the  harbour  of  his  party, 
Alexandria.  He  arrived  in  518,  and  apparently  spent  the  rest  of  his  life 
in  Egypt. 

2  (pdapToXarpai,  worshippers  of  the  corruptible. 

3  acpdaproAaTpcu,  worshippers  of  the  incorruptible;  also  called  a<pdapTodonriTai, 
believers  in  the  incorruptible. 

4  So  Evagrius  :  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  39  (P.G.  lxxxvi.  (2),  2781-2784). 

5  KTiaohdrpai,  worshippers  of  the  created. 

6  cLKTiovorai,  believers  in  the  uncreated. 


208        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

one  John  Askusnages,  at  last  evolved  pure  Polytheism,  teaching 
that  the  three  Divine  Persons  are  three  Gods.  This  goes  even 
beyond  what  one  might  expect  in  a  Christian  heresy.  He  was 
banished  ;  but  he  formed  a  school  of  Tritheists.  John  Philo- 
ponos  (a  professor  of  philosophy) ,  a  monk  Athanasius  and  others 
defended  this  monstrous  error  in  various  works.  Stephen  Niobes, 
philosopher  at  Alexandria,  carried  the  Monophysite  principle  a  step 
further.  He  saw  that,  if  Monophysites  conceded  any  difference 
of  Divine  and  human  attributes  in  Christ,  this  would  lead  logically 
to  admitting  two  natures  in  him.  So  his  cry  was  :  no  differences 
(Sia<f>opat)  in  Christ  at  all.  Damian,  Monophysite  Patriarch  of 
Alexandria  (570-605  ?),  and  his  colleague  Peter  (of  Kallinikos), 
Patriarch  of  Antioch  (580-591),  opposed  this  opinion  ;  others 
(Probus,  priest  at  Antioch,  and  John  Barbur,  Abbot  of  a  Syrian 
monastery)  took  up  and  formed  yet  another  sect  (the  Niobists). 
They  were  excommunicated  by  the  other  Monophysites,  and, 
strangely  enough,  many  members  of  this  extreme  sect  eventually 
came  back  to  the  Catholic  Church.  Hefele  notices  aptly  that  if 
the  Monophysites  who  excommunicated  Niobists  really  admitted 
distinct  Divine  and  human  attributes  in  our  Lord,  there  could 
have  been  little  but  a  mere  verbal  difference  between  them  and 
Chalcedon,  in  spite  of  their  formula,  "  one  nature  only."  x 

Towards  the  end  of  the  6th  century  Monophysism  in  Syria  was 
going  to  pieces.  In  Egypt  it  was  too  strong,  and  had  too  much 
hold  on  the  native  population,  to  be  much  persecuted  ;  but  in 
Syria  (always  less  united  than  Egypt)  it  was  only  one  party  among 
others.  There  were  severe  laws  against  it.  It  was  breaking  up 
into  all  manner  of  minor  sects.  It  seemed  as  if  it  were  about  to 
disappear  altogether.  Then  came  James  Baradai,  who  spent  his 
life  gathering  up  the  Syrian  Monophysites  into  one  strong  body. 
He  gave  them  a  hierarchy  and  an  organization  ;  and  so  practically 
founded  the  Jacobite  Church.  His  story  will  be  told  when  we 
come  to  Chapter  X  (pp.  323-325). 

1  Hefele-Leclercq  :   Hist,  des  Conciles,  ii.  (2),  p.  878. 


MONOPHYSISM  209 

7.  Monotheletism  (622-680) 

In  the  7th  century  there  were  the  various  Monophysite  sects 
we  have  noted  and  many  others — a  bewildering  ramification  from 
the  original  trunk  of  Dioscor.1  The  heresy  by  this  time  had 
formed  the  organized  Churches  of  the  Copts,  Jacobites,  Armenians, 
and  had  conquered  Abyssinia.  As  a  movement  within  the 
empire  it  was  now  at  an  end.  Then  came  the  Moslems,  and 
conquered  just  the  provinces  where  Monophysism  was  strongest. 
We  might  almost  leave  its  general  history  here.  But  there  was 
one  more  result  of  this  long  quarrel,  one  more  heresy,  an  offshoot 
of  Monophysism,  which  we  must  notice.  This  is  Monotheletism 
We  need  not  discuss  it  at  any  length,  because  it  would  be 
rather  far  from  our  main  subject.  It  would  be  quite  possible  to 
consider  the  Monothelete  story  as  a  really  different  matter  ; 
moreover,  since  Monotheletism  is  the  origin  of  the  Maronite  Church, 
we  must  come  back  to  this  heresy  when  telling  the  story  of  that 
now  most  Catholic  body.  On  the  other  hand,  a  word  about 
Monotheletism  should,  perhaps,  be  added  here,  since  it  is  the  last 
of  the  great  disturbances  which  arose  out  of  the  general  Mono- 
physite controversy. 

It  was,  as  usual,  one  more  attempt  to  conciliate  the  Mono- 
physites.  The  Emperor  Heraclius  (Herakleios,  610-641)  was 
fighting  Persians  in  Syria.  The  disloyal  attitude  of  the  Syrian 
Monophysites  was  a  grave  danger  to  the  empire.  Sergius  I, 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople  (610-638),  had  already  evolved  the 
idea  that  in  our  Lord  there  is  but  one  will,  one  source  of  energy.2 
Heraclius  thought  that  this  formula  would  be  a  moderate  conces- 
sion, by  which  the  Monophysites  might  be  persuaded  to  return  to 
union  with  the  great  Church  and  to  loyalty  towards  the  State. 
In  622  he  proposed  it  to  Paul,  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  Armenian 
Monophysites.  In  626  he  suggested  the  same  idea  to  the  Jacobite 
Patriarch  of  Antioch,  Anthanasius  (c.  621-629),  and  to  Cyrus, 
Metropolitan  of  Phasis  in  Colchis  (on  the  Black  Sea) .     They  were 

1  For  the  almost  endless  Monophysite  sects  see  Hefele-Leclercq,  ii.  (2), 
875-878,  and  Gustav  Kriiger  :  Monophysiten,  in  Herzog  and  Hauck's 
Realencyklopadie,  xiii.  398-401. 

2  iv  64\7}/j.a  xa\  uia  (j/epyeia.. 

14 


210   THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

both  pleased  with  it.  Cyrus  became  Orthodox  Patriarch  of  Alex- 
andria (c.  630-642),  and  did  with  this  formula  reconcile  many 
Monophysites  in  Egypt.  But  it  was  at  the  cost  of  fidelity  to 
Chalcedon.  The  heretics  realized  this  and  triumphed,  saying, 
"  We  have  not  gone  to  Chalcedon  ;  Chalcedon  has  come  to  us." 
However,  there  was  great  rejoicing  at  Constantinople  at  their 
apparent  conversion.  But  Sophronius,  a  monk  of  Jerusalem, 
realized  what  had  happened,  and  made  a  firm  stand  against  this 
compromise.  He  became  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem  (634-638), x  and 
was  the  great  opponent  of  the  new  heresy. 

The  issue  is  simple.  Our  Lord's  human  will  was  certainly  al- 
ways in  perfect  accord  with  the  eternal  Divine  will.  In  this 
sense  we  may  say  that  he  was  of  one  will  with  his  Father  :  "I 
do  not  seek  my  will,  but  the  will  of  him  who  sent  me  "  (Joh.  v. 
30) .  So  his  Divine  will  and  his  human  will  were  never  opposed 
to  each  other ;  he  had  one  will,  in  the  sense  that  there  was 
always  perfect  harmony  in  our  Lord.  Never  could  it  happen 
that  his  human  will  desired  anything  opposed  to  his  Divine  will, 
for  that  would  be  sin.  In  this  sense,  then,  one  might  say  that 
Christ  had  but  one  will,  not  one  faculty,  but  always  the  same 
object  of  desire  as  God  and  man,  one  volitum,  one  thing  willed  by 
both  natures.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  mean  by  will  the  faculty 
of  willing,  our  Lord  had  two  wills,  because  he  had  two  natures. 
He  had  the  eternal  unchanging  Divine  will ;  2  he  had  also  a 
perfect  human  nature,  involving  all  human  faculties,  therefore 
involving  a  created,  natural  human  will.  He  says  so  himself  : 
"  Not  my  will,  but  thine,  be  done  "  (Lc.  xxii.  42).  Exactly  the 
same  applies  to  the  source  of  energy,  the  "  ivepyeia,"  so  much 
discussed  in  this  controversy.  Christ  had  two  energies,  Divine 
and  human,  though  they  were  always  in  perfect  accord.  So  the 
theory  of  "  one  will  and  one  energy,"  Monotheletism,3  again  cuts 
away  the  difference  of  his  two  natures ;  it  denies  his  real  and 

1  It  was  this  Sophronius  who  was  Patriarch  when  the  Arabs  conquered 
Jerusalem  in  637  ;  Omar  "  entered  the  city  without  fear  or  precaution  ;  and 
courteously  discoursed  with  the  Patriarch  concerning  its  religious  anti- 
quities "  (Gibbon,  chap.  li.  ;    ed.  Bury,  vol.  v.  p.  436). 

2  Identified,  of  course,  as  are  all  Divine  powers,  with  the  one  Divine 
nature. 

8  MovutitAr}Ticr/j.6s,  fx6vov  OtAr)/j.a,  one  will. 


MONOPHYSISM  211 

perfect  humanity,  and  the  Copts  were  right  in  saying  that  by  this 
new  formula  Chalcedon  had  come  to  them.  Sergius  of  Constanti- 
nople wrote  to  Pope  Honorius  I  (625-638)  telling  him  how  by  this 
formula,  "  one  will  and  one  energy  in  Christ/'  many  Monotheletes 
had  been  converted  ;  and  Honorius  made  his  dire  mistake,  little 
thinking  how  dear  his  name  would  become,  long  centuries  later, 
to  Protestants  and  Old  Catholics.  We  cannot  now  go  into  the 
Honorius  question.  He  approved  the  formula  as  an  easy  way  of 
stopping  the  controversy  ;  he  insisted  on  Christ's  two  natures,  he 
admitted  "  one  will  "  clearly  enough  in  the  sense  of  complete 
concord,  and  desired  the  expressions  "  one  "  or  "  two  energies  " 
to  be  avoided  equally.  He  said  nothing  heretical,  and  no  later 
Pope  would  ever  admit  that  he  had.  He  made  a  deplorable 
blunder  in  tolerating  an  ambiguous  expression,  and  had  no  idea 
how  large  the  question  would  loom,  how  futile  it  was  to  try  to 
hush  it  all  up.  Then  he  died,  leaving  his  name  to  become  a 
stock  reproach  to  the  Papacy  in  the  mouths  of  thousands  of 
people  who  do  not  know  what  he  really  wrote,  who  do  not 
understand  what  an  ex  cathedra  definition  means,  who  know 
nothing  of  the  whole  story  beyond  a  cloudy  impression  that  Pope 
Honorius  once  did  something  awful  which  fearfully  compromised 
the  Catholic  theory.1 

Except  for  this  one  feeble  act  on  Honorius 's  part,  Rome  and  all 
the  West  were  solidly  opposed  to  Monotheletism.  Heraclius  tried 
to  force  it  on  the  Church  by  a  decree,  the  Ekthesis,2  in  638.  The 
Popes  John  IV  (640-642)  and  Theodore  I  (642-649)  condemned 
this.  At  Constantinople  Abbot  Maximus  also  became  a  firm 
opponent  of  Monotheletism.  The  Emperor  Constans  II  (641- 
668)  renewed  the  law  of  the  Ekthesis  in  a  fresh  decree,  Typos  (648). 
Pope  Martin  I  (649-655),  in  a  Lateran  synod  (649),  condemned 
both  decrees.  He  was  seized  by  the  Imperial  Exarch,  brought  to 
Constantinople,  ill-treated  and  banished  to  the  Chersonesus,  where 
he  died  of  his  treatment,  lacking  even  food,  on  September  16,  655, 


1  The  literature  on  Honorius  is  enormous.  His  story  (with  further  biblio- 
graphy) will  be  found  in  Hefele-Leclercq  :  Hist,  des  Conciles,  hi.  i,  pp.  347- 
397,  and  in  Dom  J.  Chapman  :  The  Condemnation  of  Pope  Honorius  (C.T.S., 
6d.). 

2  "E/cfleo-is. 


212        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

the  last  martyr-Pope.1  There  was  schism  between  Constantinople 
and  Rome,  while  seven  Byzantine  Patriarchs  held  Monotheletism. 
Abbot  Maximus  was  horribly  tortured,  and  died  in  662.  Then, 
Constans  II  being  dead,  under  his  successor  Constantine  III 
(Pogonatos,  668-685),  by  arrangement  with  Pope  Agatho  (678- 
681),  in  680  the  sixth  general  council  (Constantinople  III)  was 
held.  The  council  confirmed  the  decree  of  the  Lateran  Synod  of 
649,  condemned  the  Monothelete  heresy,  and  anathematized  a 
number  of  Monotheletes,  counting  Pope  Honorius  among  them. 
It  is  well  known  that  the  fathers  themselves  distinguished  the 
Pope  in  various  sessions  from  the  actual  originators  of  the  heresy, 
that  Pope  Leo  II  (682-683),  who  confirmed  their  decrees,  admitted 
a  condemnation  of  Honorius,  not  as  a  heretic,  but  as  one  who 
"  did  not  cleanse  this  x\postolic  Church  by  the  teaching  of  Apos- 
tolic tradition,  but  by  a  profane  betrayal  allowed  the  immaculate 
faith  to  be  overturned,"  2  which  exactly  expresses  the  extent  of 
his  guilt.3 

Monotheletism  then  disappeared,4  except  that  it  continued  among 
the  simple  folk  of  the  Lebanon,  where  it  formed  the  Maronite 
Church.  And  with  Monotheletism  ends  this  long  story  of  Mono- 
physite  disturbances.  By  the  8th  century  the  controversy  of 
nearly  three  centuries  was  over.  The  Monophysites  were  by  no 
means  extinct,  any  more  than  were  the  Nestorians.  But  they 
now  had  established  their  own  organized  Churches,  whose  story 
we  have  still  to  tell.  In  the  Church  of  the  empire,  not  yet  divided 
by  the  schism  of  Photius,  the  faith  of  Chalcedon  reigns  supreme. 
Its  next  trouble  is  Iconoclasm,  which  is  quite  another  matter. 
And  as  soon  as  Iconoclasm  was  over  came  the  beginning  of  the 
most  disastrous  of  all  schisms,  which  cut  away  the  "  Orthodox  " 


We  keep  the  feast  of  St.  Martin  I,  Pope  and  martyr,  on  November  12  ; 
the  Byzantine  Calendar  has  his  feast  on  April  13,  September  15,  and  Sep 
tember  20.  For  an  Orthodox  acknowledgement  of  Papal  rights,  see  their 
Synaxarion  in  his  honour,  quoted  in  Nilles  :  Kalendarium  manuale,  i. 
I37-I38- 

2  Hefele-Leclercq  :    op.  cit.  hi.  (1),  p.  519. 

3  See  Chapman  :  op.  cit. 

4  The  story  of  this  heresy  will  be  found  at  length  in  Hefele-Leclercq,  hi. 
(I)»  3I7-471  ;  that  °f  the  sixth  General  Council,  472-512  ;  the  condemna- 
tion of  Honorius,  515-538. 


MONOPHYSISM  213 

from  the  Catholic  Church.     That  story  is  told  in  the  volume 
on  the  Orthodox  Eastern  Church. 

Summary 

This  chapter  is  concerned  with  the  long  and  involved  story  of 
the  Monophysite  heresy.  Monophysism  began  as  an  exaggerated 
opposition  to  Nestorianism.  Egypt,  the  land  of  Cyril,  was  always 
its  headquarters.  The  essence  of  this  heresy  is  that  our  Lord  has 
only  one  nature,  that  his  humanity  is  so  absorbed  in  his  Divinity 
that  he  would  not  really  be  a  man  at  all.  Eutyches,  Archiman- 
drite at  Constantinople,  first  brought  this  view  into  prominence. 
Dioscor  of  Alexandria,  St.  Cyril's  successor,  was  its  chief  champion. 
Dioscor  first. triumphed  at  the  Robber-Synod  of  Ephesus  in  449. 
He  was  defeated  and  deposed,  and  Monophysism  was  condemned 
by  the  fourth  General  Council  at  Chalcedon  in  452.  The  faith  of 
Chalcedon  remains  always  that  of  the  Catholic  Church,  as  opposed 
to  Monophysism.  Pope  Leo  I  had  already  declared  this  faith  in 
his  Tome,  accepted  with  acclamation  by  the  Council.  After 
Chalcedon  the  Monophysite  party  was  by  no  means  extinct.  It 
continued  to  cause  enormous  trouble  to  both  Church  and  State  for 
about  two  and  a  half  centuries.  During  all  this  time  there  were 
continual  attempts  on  the  part  of  the  Government  to  conciliate  the 
heretics  by  meeting  them  half  way.  None  of  these  attempts  were 
successful,  most  of  them  were  themselves  a  betrayal  of  the  faith, 
all  led  to  further  trouble  with  Rome  and  the  West.  Zeno's  Heno- 
tikon  caused  the  Acacian  schism,  which  lasted  thirty-five  years 
(484-519)  ;  Justinian's  condemnation  of  the  Three  Chapters 
brought  about  the  tragic  incident  of  Pope  Vigilius  and  the  fifth 
General  Council  (Constantinople  II,  553)  ;  Heraclius'  compromise 
of  Monotheletism  caused  the  scandal  of  Pope  Honorius  I  and  the 
sixth  General  Council  (Constantinople  III,  680).  Meanwhile, 
Monophysism  produced  a  crowd  of  strange  dependent  sects.  It  was 
firmly  established  in  Egypt  and  Abyssinia ;  it  had  many  adherents 
in  Syria  and  Palestine  ;  the  Armenian  Church  turned  Mono- 
physite solidly.  So  this  heresy  produced  four  Monophysite 
Churches  (the  Copts  in  Egypt,  the  Abyssinians,  the  Jacobites  in 
Syria  and  Palestine,  the  Armenians),  with  a  reaction  on  the 
distant  missionary  Church  of  Malabar  (originally  Nestorian). 


CHAPTER   VII 

THE    COPTIC    CHURCH    IN    THE    PAST 

The  Coptic  Church  is  the  national  Church  of  Egypt — the  Alex- 
andrine Patriarchate  turned  Monophysite.  The  overwhelming 
majority  of  the  population  of  Egypt  accepted  this  heresy.  The 
orthodox  in  Egypt — the  so-called  Melkites — who  clung  to  Chalce- 
don  and  the  "  Emperor's  Church/'  were  never  more  than  a  small 
minority  of  foreign  (Greek)  functionaries  and  the  Imperial  garri- 
son. The  situation  is  that  Christian  Egypt  turned  Monophysite. 
As  a  matter  of  historic  continuity,  the  old  Church  of  Egypt,  the 
Church  of  Athanasius  and  Cyril,  is  now  represented  by  the  Mono- 
physite Copts.  They  are  the  old  Church,  fallen  into  heresy  and 
schism.  The  Orthodox  in  Egypt,  with  their  foreign  rite  and 
foreign  language,  are  just  as  much  foreigners  as  the  Latins.  If  a 
man  pins  his  faith  on  the  idea  of  one  Catholic  Church  made  up  of 
separated  national  branches,  the  Egyptian  branch  should  be 
the  Coptic  sect. 

For  the  history  of  the  Copts  I  use  chiefly  Eutychius,  Orthodox 
Patriarch  of  Alexandria  (933-940), L  Severus  of  Al-Ushmunain,2 

1  Sa'id  Ibn  Batrik  (Eutychius)  :  Contextio  Gemmarum  (in  Arabic,  nazm 
algawdhir,  ed.  by  L.  Cheikho,  S.J.,  in  the  Corp.  Script.  Christ.  Orient., 
1906-1909  ;  Latin  version  in  P.G.  ci.  889-1232),  a  history  of  the  world 
down  to  938  with  details  about  the  Church  of  Egypt  from  the  orthodox 
point  of  view. 

2  Severus,  Monophysite  Bishop  of  Al-Ushmunain  :  History  of  the  Patri- 
archs of  Alexandria  (Arabic  and  English,  ed.  by  B.  Evetts  in  the  Patrologia 
Orientalis,  vols.  i.  and  v.),  a  Coptic  rival  work  to  Eutychius.  Severus' 
history  (to  the  6th  cent.)  is  continued  by  other  writers  to  the  19th,  and 
forms  a  kind  of  Liber  Pontificalis  of  the  Coptic  Church. 

214 


THE   COPTIC    CHURCH  IN   THE  PAST      215 

Makrlzi,1  AlMakin,2  Renaudot.3      Another  modern  compilation 
from  these  sources  is  Dr.  Neale's  History  of  the  Patriarchate  of 
Alexandria*    Abii-Dakn's  little  book  5  contains  some  curious  in-, 
formation.     Mrs.  Butcher's  Story  of  the  Church  of  Egypt 6  has  no  | 
value  at  all ;  she  has  not  the  most  elementary  notion  of  either 
Church  history  or  theology. 


i.  The  Copts  in  the  Roman  Empire 

The  name  Copt  means  simply  Egyptian.  It  is  an  Arabic  form 
of  the  Greek  for  Egypt  or  Egyptian.7  Its  present  ecclesiastical 
sense  is  not  very  old.  The  Arab  conquerors  called  all  the  natives 
they  found  in  Egypt  by  this  name,  without  any  idea  of  a  religious 
connotation.  But  since  these  natives  practically  all  were  members 
of  the  Monophysite  national  Church,8  from  about  the  14th  century 
Europeans  have  used  the  word  Copt  for  a  member  of  that  Church. 
In  this  sense  it  is  now  universal.  A  Copt  is  a  member  of  the 
Monophysite  Church  of  Egypt.9 

It  is  not  necessary  to  begin  our  account  of  the  Coptic  Church  at 
the  first  evangelizing  of  their  land,  nor  to  discuss  the  doubtful 
authenticity  of  the  tradition  that  St.  Mark  brought  the  Gospel 

1  Takiyu-dDin  alMakrlzi,  a  Moslem  writer  in  Egypt  (f  1441),  wrote  a 
history  ("  Book  of  Exhortation  and  Consideration,"  Kitdb  alMuwa'az  wa- 
ll'tabdr),  which  contains  a  long  account  of  the  Copts.  This  part  has  been 
edited  in  Arabic  and  German  by  F.  Wiistenfeld  :  Macrizi's  Gesch.  der  Copten 
(Gottingen,  1845). 

2  AlMakin  (f  1275)  :  Historia  Saracenica  (Arab,  and  Latin),  ed.  T. 
Erpenius,  Leiden,  1625. 

3  Historia  Patriarcharum  Alexandr.  Jacobit.  (Paris,  1713),  mostly  taken 
from  Severus  of  Al-Ushmunain. 

4  History  of  the  Holy  Eastern  Church,  vols.  iv.  and  v.  (London,  Masters, 
1847). 

5  Joseph  Abudacnus  :   Hist.  Jacobitarum  seu  Coptorum,  Oxford,  1675. 

6  London,  Smith,  Elder,  2  vols.,  1897. 

7  Kibt,  Kibti,  from  Myvirros,  aiyunrios.  This  derivation  is  now 
admitted  by  almost  everyone.  The  loss  of  the  first  syllable  is  quite  in 
accordance  with  Arabic  philology.  They  would  consider  it  as  wasla,  then 
drop  it.  So  bu  for  abu,  -bn  for  ibn,  etc.  A  further  consideration  is  whether 
aiyviTTos  comes  from  Ha-ka-ptah,  "  Houses  of  Ptah."  The  Arabic  for  Egypt 
is  misr,  the  old  Semitic  name  (Hebr.  misraim). 

8  A  handful  of  native  Egyptians  has  always  been  Melkite. 

9  It  is  better  not  to  call  them  Jacobites,  keeping  that  name  for  their  co- 
religionists in  Syria,  where  it  is  much  more  suitable  (see  pp.  9,  336), 


216   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

to  Alexandria.  In  the  case  of  the  Nestorians  their  sect  arose  in 
an  outlying  little-known  corner  of  the  Church,  whose  previous 
history  demanded  some  account  before  we  came  to  the  beginning 
of  the  heresy  which  eventually  cut  it  off.  But  Egypt  was  a  very 
important  province  of  the  Church.  The  origin  of  the  Alexandrine 
Patriarchate,  once  second  in  Christendom,  its  famous  school,  the 
tragic  story  of  Origen,  the  Arian  heresy,  the  life  of  the  greatest 
of  all  Alexandrine  Patriarchs,  Athanasius— this  is  in  the  strictest 
sense  part  of  general  Church  history,  which  one  may  suppose 
known  to  every  reader.  And  Cyril's  war  against  Nestorianism, 
also  well  known,  has  been  told  again  in  our  first  part.  Leaving 
all  this,  then,  we  begin  our  account  of  the  Copts  with  their 
schism. 

Our  general  account  of  Monophysism  (Chapter  VI)  has  already 
covered  much  of  this.  The  shortest  statement  of  the  events 
which  led  up  to  the  founding  of  a  stable  Monophysite  Patriarchate 
in  Egypt  will  be  enough  here. 

At  first,  as  happens  in  nearly  every  heresy,  the  heretics  did  not 
constitute  themselves  in  a  separate  organized  body.  The  quarrel 
begins  more  or  less  within  the  Church.1  In  Egypt  we  now  see 
several  lines  of  Patriarchs,  each  claiming  the  title  of  Alexandria, 
with  a  further  qualification  (Coptic  Patriarch,  Orthodox  Patriarch, 
Uniate  Patriarch,  etc.),  each  agreeing  to  differ,  and,  side  by  side, 
ruling  the  various  groups  which  recognize  them.  Now  they  have 
their  berat  from  the  Government,  each  for  his  own  "  nation  "  ; 
they  even  pay  each  other  friendly  visits  on  New  Year's  Day.  Not 
so  at  the  beginning.  No  one  then  conceived  the  possibility  of 
two  Patriarchs  side  by  side  on  terms  of  practical  mutual  recogni- 
tion. There  could  be  only  one  Patriarch,  as  there  could  be  only 
one  bishop  in  each  see.  The  two  parties,  Monophysite  and 
Catholic,  struggled  and  fought  over  these.  When  a  Catholic, 
supported  by  the  Government,  succeeded  in  holding  the  Patriar- 
chal throne,  he  promptly  drove  out  all  Monophysite  bishops,  for- 
bade Monophysite  theology,  tried  to  stamp  out  the  heresy,  and 

1  In  most  cases  it  is  difficult  to  say  exactly  at  what  moment  a  sect  has 
begun  to  exist  outside  the  Church.  At  first  the  heretics  are  rather  dis- 
turbers of  the  peace  within.  It  is  only  gradually  that,  being  excom- 
municate, they  form  themselves  into  a  schismatical  group,  and  so  begin 
their  career  as  a  separate  body. 


THE   COPTIC   CHURCH  IN   THE  PAST      217 

persecuted  the  heretics  without  scruple.  Then,  when  the  native 
population  succeeded  in  driving  him  out  or  murdering  him,  they 
set  up  a  Monophysite  as  his  successor,  who  immediately  ejected 
all  Catholic  bishops,  recalled  the  Monophysites  and  persecuted 
Catholics.  This  state  of  things  lasted  almost  till  the  Arab  con- 
quest. It  is  a  succession  of  Catholics  and  Monophysites,  having 
in  turn  the  upper  hand  over  the  same  body,  rather  than  two 
communities  side  by  side.  Sometimes  there  were  two  Patriarchs 
at  the  same  time  ;  but  neither  in  any  way  admitted  the  claim  of 
the  other.  Generally  there  is  one  in  possession  of  the  Patriarchal 
palace  and  church  and  one  deposed,  who  does  not  admit  his 
deposition.  So  the  situation  lasts  for  about  a  century.  It  pro- 
duces the  result  that  the  present  Coptic  and  Orthodox  Patriarchs 
of  Alexandria,  each  claiming  succession  straight  down  from  St. 
Mark,  St.  Athanasius,  St.  Cyril,  must  count  representatives  of  the 
other  faith  among  his  own  predecessors.  The  Orthodox  counts 
Dioscor,  the  Copt  Proterius,  as  (from  their  respective  points  of 
view)  unworthy  predecessors  of  their  correct  selves.  During  this 
long  time  of  confusion,  however,  the  two  faiths  were  gradually 
forming  two  groups  (an  enormous  Monophysite  group,  a  tiny 
Orthodox  group  of  Greek  functionaries)  ;  so  that  eventually  each 
kept  its  own  line  of  Patriarchs,  each  became  a  separate  body. 
Then  different  rites  and  different  liturgical  languages  accentuated 
the  separation.  It  would  have  saved  much  trouble,  and  incident- 
ally much  murdering,  burning  and  mutual  persecution,  if  that 
state  of  things  had  been  admitted  from  the  beginning,  if  the 
Government  of  Constantinople  had  frankly  acknowledged  two 
religions  in  Egypt,  had  let  each  have  its  own  Patriarch  and 
hierarchy.  But  this  is  a  modern  idea  of  toleration  which  we  must 
not  expect  in  the  Byzantine  state.  Nor  would  it  have  satisfied 
the  Monophysites  :  for  in  those  days  heretics  were  by  no  means 
content  to  be  allowed  their  own  religion  ;  they  always  hoped  to 
capture  the  whole  body  of  Christians  to  their  view,  just  as  Catholics 
always  hoped  to  stamp  out  the  heresy  altogether.  Let  us  again 
note,  as  a  last  general  point,  that  all  through  this  trouble,  ever 
since  Dioscor  and  his  Robber-Synod  (449),  the  Monophysites  in 
Egypt  were  the  overwhelming  majority  ;  they  had  practically 
all  the  native  population.     Chalcedonianism  was  the  religion  of 


218        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

the  Greek  garrison  and  officials,  which  the  Byzantine  Government 
was  trying  to  force  on  turbulent  and  rebellious  natives. 

St.  Cyril's  successor,  Dioscor  of  Alexandria  (444-451,  -f  454), 
was,  we  have  seen,  a  vehement  Monophysite.  In  Lequien's  list  he 
is  the  twenty-fifth  Patriarch  since  St.  Mark.1  We  may  count  him 
as  the  first  Coptic  Patriarch,  in  the  modern  sense  of  Monophysite. 
But  he  was  not,  of  course,  conscious  of  beginning  any  new  Church. 
He  protested  that  he  was  defending  the  old  faith  of  Athanasius 
and  Cyril.  And  for  a  long  time  after  him  there  is  still  only  one 
line,  held  alternately  by  Monophysites  and  Orthodox.  When 
Dioscor  was  deposed  by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (451),  the 
Government  made  a  Catholic,  Proterius  (451-457),  Patriarch. 
Proterius  was  murdered  in  457  and  the  Copts  set  up  Timothy  the 
Cat  (457-460).  Then  he  was  banished,  and  a  Catholic,  Timothy 
Salophakiolos  (460-475),  was  set  up.  Salophakiolos  was  ejected 
by  the  usurping  Emperor  Basiliskos  in  475,  and  the  Cat  was 
restored.  Zeno  deposed  the  Cat  and  brought  back  Salophakiolos 
in  476.  He  reigned  then  till  his  death  in  481.  When  the  Cat 
died  (479)  the  Copts  set  up  Peter  Mongos  ;  but  at  first  he  did  not 
obtain  possession.  Instead,  the  Catholic  John  Talaia  was 
appointed  (482).  Then  came  the  Henotikon.  Talaia  would  not 
sign  it  and  fled  to  Rome.  Peter  Mongos  signed,  obtained  the 
palace  and  church,  and  reigned  till  his  death  (482-490).  Talaia 
was  the  last  Catholic  Patriarch  for  about  sixty  years.  With 
Mongos  we  come  to  the  time  of  the  Acacian  schism  (pp.  193-199)  ; 
Egypt  becomes  more  and  more  the  central  home  of  all  Mono- 
physism,  the  harbour  of  refuge  to  which  these  heretics  flee  from 
all  countries.  Six  Monophysite  Patriarchs  follow.  Mongos 
fiercely  persecuted  all  Melkites  in  Egypt.  He  became  a  tower  of 
strength  to  his  party,  so  that  "  communion  with  Mongos  "  was 
the  recognized  outward  sign  of  inward  Monophysism.  But  in 
Egypt  the  extreme  Monophysites,  who  from  their  side  were  as 
dissatisfied  with  the  compromising  Henotikon  as  were  loyal 
Catholics,  refused  to  accept  it,  broke  with  Mongos  because  he  did 
so,  and  formed  the  schism  of  "  those  without  a  Chief  (Akephaloi, 
p.   194)."  2    There  were  a  number  of  other  schisms  and  sects, 

1  Lequien  :    Oriens  Christianas,  ii.  409. 

2  Alladdn  Id  rd's  I  ahum  in  Severus  of  Al-Ushmunain  (ed.  cit.  p.  [210]). 


THE   COPTIC    CHURCH   IN   THE   PAST      219 

strange  parties  with  wild  ideas  into  which  the  great  Monophysite 
movement  was  breaking  up.1  After  Mongos  came  Athanasius  II 
(490-497),  who  tried  in  vain  to  force  the  Henotikon  on  Catholics 
and  Akephaloi.  Then  followed  John  Hemula  (John  I,  497-507), 
who  made  an  attempt  at  reunion  with  Rome,  but  without  success, 
since  he  would  not  give  up  the  Henotikon.  John  II  (Nikiotes, 
507-517)  went  beyond  the  Henotikon.  He  was  an  out-and-out 
Monophysite,  who  refused  communion  to  everyone  who  would 
not  formally  reject  Chalcedon.  Dioscor  II  (517-520),  a  nephew 
of  Timothy  the  Cat,  reconciled  the  Akephaloi,  since  he  too 
abandoned  the  Henotikon  and  taught  pure  Monophysism. 
During  his  time  the  end  of  the  Acacian  schism  took  place  (517, 
p.  199)  ;  so  he  found  himself  out  of  communion  with  every  other 
Patriarch  and  remained  the  one  great  Monophysite  in  the  East. 
Severus  of  Antioch  and  Julian  of  Halicarnassus  came  to  Egypt 
while  Dioscor  II  was  Patriarch ;  further  quarrels  between 
factions  of  Monophysites  began  (pp.  206-208).  Then  came 
Timothy  II  (520-536),  also  a  Monophysite.  The  Themistian 
heresy  (p.  207)  began  in  his  time.  The  tide  at  Constantinople  has 
now  turned.  The  Acacian  schism  is  over  ;  the  Emperors  Justin 
I  (518-527)  and  then  Justinian  (527-565)  are  Catholics.  Natur- 
ally Justinian  tried  to  secure  a  Chalcedonian  Patriarch  at  Alex- 
andria. He  summoned  Timothy  II  to  Constantinople,  that  he 
might  give  an  account  of  himself.  Timothy  was  about  to  obey, 
when  by  dying  he  was  spared  the  deposition  which  awaited  him. 
Then  came  a  schism  among  the  Monophysites  themselves.  We 
have  referred  to  the  sects  of  the  Phthartolatrai,  who,  following 
Severus,  admitted  that  the  body  of  Christ  was  corruptible 
(moderate  Monophysites),  and  of  the  Aphthartolatrai,  the  extreme 
party  of  Julian  of  Halicarnassus,  which  denied  this  teaching, 
practically  Docetes  (pp.  206-207).  The  Phthartolatrai  at 
Timothy's  death  elected  one  Theodosius  (538),  their  opponents 
chose  a  certain  Gainas.2  Theodosius  succeeded  in  persuading  the 
Government  to  banish  his  rival ;  but  he  could  not  secure  peace 
for  his  own  reign.  The  people  were  extreme  Monophysites,  and 
looked  upon  him  as  little  better  than  a  Melkite.     There  were 

1  Lequien  :    Or.  Christ,  ii.  430-433. 

2  Otherwise  called  Gaianus,  Kayanus  in  Severus,  p.  [192]. 


220        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

tumults,  riots,  bloodshed.  So  Theodosius  went  to  Constantinople 
to  ask  for  help.  Here  he  was  warmly  welcomed  by  the  Empress 
Theodora,  who  was  herself  a  Monophysite  (p.  200) .  But,  although 
he  belonged  to  the  more  moderate  (and  less  logical)  party,  he 
would  not  accept  Chalcedon.  The  Government  of  Justinian 
insisted  on  this  ;  so  he  was  kept  near  the  capital  in  exile.  Mean- 
while, in  Egypt  the  two  factions,  his  and  that  of  Gainas,  tore  each 
other.  In  539,  Justinian,  by  the  advice  of  the  Papal  legate,  sent 
a  monk  Paul  to  be  Patriarch  of  Alexandria.  Paul  (539-541)  was 
a  Catholic,  the  first  since  John  Talaia  (p.  194).  As  a  Melkite  he 
had  all  the  natives  against  him.  Theodosius  wrote  letters  to 
them  exhorting  them  to  resist  the  usurper  and  to  remain  faithful 
to  himself.  Paul  fell  foul  of  the  Government,  and  perhaps  became 
himself  a  heretic.1  He  was  deposed  and  banished ;  Zoilus 
(542-550)  was  made  (Melkite)  Patriarch  in  his  place.  The 
quarrel  of  the  Three  Chapters  (pp.  202-205)  now  begins.  Zoilus 
had  signed  their  condemnation.  Then  he  retracted  and  was 
deposed.  Apollinaris  (550-568)  was  intruded  in  his  place. 
During  the  reign  of  the  Melkite  Apollinaris  his  Coptic  rival 
Theodosius  died  (567).  Apollinaris  thought  the  schism  was  over, 
and  gave  a  banquet  in  his  delight.2  On  the  contrary,  from  now 
the  rival  lines  of  Coptic  and  Melkite  Patriarchs  are  established  ; 
they  were  destined  to  last  to  our  own  day. 

For  a  time  there  were  two  Monophysite  claimants  ;  the  fol- 
lowers of  Theodosius  and  Gainas  each  had  a  successor  to  their 
Patriarch.  When  Gainas  died  the  two  parties  agreed  to  elect 
one  Patriarch  for  both.  They  chose  Dorotheus.  But  he  went 
over  to  the  Gainites  altogether,3  so  the  Theodosians  withdrew 
their  obedience  from  him  and  chose  one  John,  who  soon  dis- 
appeared. Then  they  chose  Peter.  The  Gainites  now  become 
a  small  further  schism,  which  eventually  died  out.4  The  claimant 
of  the  Theodosians,  Peter  III  (567-570),  was  consecrated  by  the 
Jacobite  Patriarch  of  Antioch  (Paul  I,  c.  549-578).     He  and  his 

1  So  Lequien  :    Or.  Christ,  ii.  435. 

2  Severus  of  Al-Ushmunain,  p.  [206]. 

3  It  will  be  remembered  that  there  was  a  theological  difference  between 
the  two  parties.  The  Gainites  were  the  Aphthartolatrai,  the  Theodosians 
Phthartolatrai  (p.  207). 

4  They  had  a  bishop  as  late  as  700  (Or.  Christ,  ii.  454). 


THE  COPTIC  CHURCH  IN   THE  PAST      221 

successors  are  the  line  of  Coptic  Patriarchs,  acknowledged  by  the 
great  mass  of  Egyptian  Christians,  which  still  exists. 

So  at  last,  after  all  this  confusion,  we  come  to  a  fairly  clear 
parting  of  the  ways.  Apollinaris  and  his  successors  are  the 
Melkite  Patriarchs,  Peter  III  and  his  form  the  Coptic  line.  Here 
we  are  concerned  with  the  Copts.  A  few  words  will  be  enough 
with  which  to  dismiss  the  Melkites,  before  we  come  back  to  our 
main  subject. 

Apollinaris  was  succeeded  by  John  I  (568-579)  ;  then  came 
Eulogius  (579-607),  the  friend  and  correspondent  of  Pope  St. 
Gregory  I  (590-604)  ;  then  Theodore  (607-609)  and  John  II, 
surnamed  the  Almoner  (609-620).  George  (621-630)  followed; 
then  Cyrus  (630-642),  who  accepted  Monotheletism  and  by  it  won 
over  many  Monophysites  to  a  false  union  (p.  210).  During  his 
time  came  the  Arab  conquest  (639) .  He  was  succeeded  by  Peter 
II  (643-c.  655),  also  a  Monothelete,  who,  finding  all  Egypt  in  the 
hands  of  the  Arabs,  and  the  Copts  recognized  by  the  new  masters 
as  the  Christianity  of  the  country,  went  back  to  Constantinople 
and  stayed  there,  thus  setting  an  example  of  non-residence  which 
was  to  be  followed  by  many  of  his  successors.  After  the  death 
of  Peter  II  the  Melkite  see  was  vacant  for  over  seventy  years.  It 
was  again  filled  by  Cosmas  I  in  727  (to  about  775).  This  line 
then  continues,  with  various  interruptions,  till  now.  The  Melkite 
Patriarchs  shared  in  the  schism  of  Photius  and  Cerularius  ;  in  the 
13th  century  they  adopted  the  Byzantine  rite  ;  they  became 
more  and  more  Byzantinized,  Greeks  ruling  over  a  little  flock  in 
the  midst  of  the  hostile  Copts.  After  the  Moslem  conquest,  for 
long  periods,  finding  they  had  little  to  do  in  Egypt,  they  went 
to  reside  at  Constantinople.  Mere  servants  of  the  Byzantine 
Patriarch,  generally  nominated  by  him,  they  added  to  the  splen- 
dour of  his  court  their  Patriarchal  vestments  and  empty  title.1 
When  they  were  in  Egypt  these  Orthodox  Patriarchs  lived  at 
Cairo,  like  their  Coptic  rivals.    Their  history  belongs  to  that  of  the 


1  An  obvious  parallel  is  the  case  of  the  Latin  Patriarchs  and  bishops  set 
up  in  the  East  by  the  Crusaders.  When  all  the  Crusaders'  lands  were  lost, 
when  there  were  practically  no  more  Latin  communities  in  the  Levant, 
these  came  to  Rome  and  carried  on  merely  titular  lines  as  ornaments  of  the 
Papal  Court. 


222   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Orthodox  Church.1  Their  little  flock  has  now  only  four  non- 
resident suffragans,2  and  is  governed  by  the  Lord  Photios,  Ortho- 
dox Patriarch  of  Alexandria.  This  line  of  Patriarchs  no  longer 
concerns  us — except  that  incidentally  we  shall  hear  of  the  Melkites 
during  their  frequent  quarrels  with  the  Copts. 

Turning  to  the  Coptic  line,  we  come  back  to  Peter  III  (567-570). 
He  was  succeeded  by  Damian  (570-c.  603)  ;  then  followed 
Anastasius  (603-614).  A  schism  had  arisen  between  the  Copts 
and  their  Monophysite  brethren,  the  Jacobites  of  Syria,  during 
the  time  of  Damian.3  Anastasius  of  Alexandria  was  able  to  heal 
this.  The  victories  of  Chosroes  II  of  Persia  (590-628  ;  see  p.  90) 
had  begun.  In  614  he  captured  Damascus  and  overran  Syria  ; 
in  615  he  took  Jerusalem  and  carried  away  the  relic  of  the  Cross. 
The  Jacobite  Patriarch  Athanasius  (p.  334)  fled  before  him  and 
came  to  Egypt.  Here  he  was  reconciled  with  Anastasius.  He 
was  received  with  great  honour  and  pomp,  and  communicated 
with  his  Coptic  brother.  But  Sophronius  of  Jerusalem,  who  was 
orthodox,  curses  both,  and  their  union.4 

During  all  this  time,  till  the  Moslem  conquest,  the  Melkites, 
although  so  small  a  party,  naturally  enjoyed  the  favour  of  the 
Byzantine  Government.  They  held  the  chief  churches  and  the 
old  Patriarchal  palace.  The  Melkite  Patriarch  was  generally 
made  Imperial  commissioner  for  Egypt  ;  so  he  had  supreme 
political  authority  in  the  land.  But  Melkite  power  was  practically 
confined  to  the  Hellenized  cities  of  Lower  Egypt,  chiefly  to 
Alexandria.  Upper  Egypt,  the  Thebais  and  the  desert,  with  its 
crowd  of  monks,  was  all  Monophysite.  The  Coptic  Patriarchs, 
driven  out  of  Alexandria  by  their  rivals,  lived  for  the  most  part 
in  the  monasteries  of  Upper  Egypt.  However,  some  of  them 
were  able  to  stay  in  Alexandria.  In  616  the  Persians  invaded 
Egypt.  John  the  Almoner  (the  Melkite  Patriarch)  fled  to  Cyprus  ; 
the  Coptic  throne  was  occupied  by  Andronicus  (614-620).  The 
enemy  held  Egypt  till  the  treaty  of  628,  when  Heraclius'  victories 
compelled  him  to  withdraw  his  troops.     During  these  twelve 

1  See  Orthodox  Eastern  Church,  pp.  285-286.  2  lb.  285. 

3  For  the  frequent  schisms  which  interrupted  the  normally  friendly 
relations  between  the  Monophysites  of  Egypt  and  Syria,  see  below,  pp.  333- 

335- 

4  Ep.  Synodica  ad  Sergium  Const.  (P.G.  lxxxvii.  part  3,  3193A). 


THE   COPTIC   CHURCH  IN   THE  PAST     223 

years  the  Copts  felt  the  weight  of  that  same  arm  which  was 
crushing  their  old  opponents  the  Nestorians.  Chosroes  II  was  a 
bitter  persecutor  of  all  Christians.  Churches  were  destroyed, 
monks  massacred,  nuns  ravished.  These  years  of  Persian 
oppression  were  a  bitter  foretaste  of  the  long  Moslem  persecution, 
now  soon  to  begin.  When  the  Persians  withdrew,  the  Copts  were 
again  able  to  elect  a  Patriarch.  They  chose  a  monk  Benjamin 
(620-659).  In  his  time  occurred  the  union  of  many  Copts  to  the 
Orthodox,  achieved  by  the  Melkite  Patriarch  Cyrus,  on  the  basis 
of  Monotheletism  (p.  210).  Benjamin,  as  a  staunch  Monophysite, 
refused  to  accept  the  Monothelete  compromise  and  fled  to  Upper 
Egypt.  "  For  Heraclius  the  misbeliever  had  charged  them  (his 
soldiers),  saying  :  '  If  anyone  says  that  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
is  true,  let  him  go  ;  but  drown  in  the  sea  those  that  say  it  is 
erroneous  and  false/  .  .  .  Then  Heraclius  appointed  bishops 
throughout  the  land  of  Egypt,  as  far  as  the  city  of  Antinoe,  and 
tried  the  inhabitants  or  Egypt  with  hard  trials,  and  like  a  ravening 
wolf  devoured  the  reasonable  flock,  and  was  not  satiated.  And 
this  blessed  people  who  were  thus  presecuted  were  the  Theo- 
dosians."  x     Then  in  639  came  the  victorious  Arabs. 


2.  The  Arab  Conquest  of  Egypt  (639) 

That  the  True  Believers,  in  the  first  impulse  of  their  victorious 
career,  swept  irresistibly  over  Persia,  Syria  and  Egypt  is  well 
known.  During  the  first  century  or  so  after  the  Prophet's  death 
(632)  no  one  could  withstand  them.  They  crushed  every  army 
sent  by  the  Emperor  or  the  Great  King,  made  all  Persia  Moslem, 
and  tore  from  the  empire  its  richest  provinces.  In  December  639 
'Amr,2  fresh  from  the  conquest  of  Syria,  invaded  Egypt.  He 
overran  the  whole  country,  defeated  the  Romans  in  three  pitched 
battles,  besieged  and  took  the  city  Babylon,  on  the  right  bank  of 
the  Nile,  in  640,  and  Alexandria  in  641.  By  the  winter  of  641-642 
Egypt  was  part  of  the  Khalifs  domain,  the  army  of  'Amr  was 

1  Hist,  oj  the  Patriarchs  of  Alexandria  (ed.  B.  Evetts),  pp.  [227-228]. 

2  Abu  'Abdillah,  'Amru-bnu-rAsi-bni  Wa'ili-ssahmi,  of  a  noble  family  of 
the  Kuraish,  was  converted  to  Islam  soon  after  Mohammed  took  Mekkah. 
He  was  the  conqueror  of  Syria  and  Egypt. 


224        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

employed  to  restore  order,  garrison  the  towns  and  arrange  the 
usual  Moslem  terms  of  submission  for  the  native  Christians.  It  is 
commonly  said  that  the  Copts,  hating  the  Roman  Government 
and  the  Melkites,  helped  the  Arab  conquerors.  Their  Patriarch 
Benjamin,  then  in  exile,  is  said  to  have  sent  a  message  to  his 
people  urging  them  to  submit  peaceably  to  'Amr.  The  Arab 
historians  tell  of  a  certain  Christian,  Al-Mukaukis,  who  betrayed 
the  land  to  them.1  This  person  justly  incurs  the  scorn  of  all 
Christians,  as  the  arch-traitor  to  his  faith  and  fatherland.  But 
there  is  some  doubt  as  to  who  he  may  be.  Mukaukis  is  clearly  the 
transliteration  of  a  Greek  title.2  He  is  often  said  to  be  no  other 
than  the  Coptic  Patriarch,  Benjamin.  Mr.  A.  J.  Butler,  on  the 
other  hand,  defends  a  view  exactly  opposite  to  this.  He  main- 
tains that  the  Copts  were  bitterly  hostile  to  the  Moslems,  that 
Al-Mukaukis  is  the  Melkite  Patriarch,  Cyrus.3  Considering  the 
extreme  improbability  of  this  (since  the  Melkites  were  just  the 
Government  party,  the  Copts  always  hostile  to  the  empire),  and 
that  the  Moslems  at  first  favoured  the  Copts  and  persecuted 
the  Melkites,  his  view  is  difficult  to  accept.4 

'Amr  made  Fustat  ("  the  Camp,"  where  his  army  had  lain 
during  the  siege  of  Babylon)  his  capital.  Alexandria  from  now 
becomes  a  city  of  secondary  importance.  Egypt  was  ruled  by  a 
governor  under  the  Khalif .  When  the  Moslems  became  masters 
of  the  land  they  found  it  inhabited  almost  entirely  by  the  Mono- 
physite  Copts,  with  a  small  handful  of  Melkites.  Al-Makrizi, 
who  now  becomes  a  chief  authority,  says  :  "  When  the  Moslems 
entered  Egypt  it  was  rilled  with  Christians,  who  were  divided  into 
two  separate  parts  by  descent  and  religion.  One  part,  the 
governing  body,  consisted  only  of  Romans  from  the  army  of  the 

1  See  S.  Lane-Poole  :  A  History  of  Egypt  in  the  Middle  Ages  (Methuen, 
1901),  pp.  6-7. 

2  ntyaux'f)s>  "  glorious." 

3  The  Arab  Conquest  of  Egypt  (Oxford,  1902),  pp.  508-526. 

4  AlMakin  (ib.  511)  :  "  Al-Mukaukis  was  Governor  of  Egypt  in  the 
name  of  Herakl.  He  and  the  chiefs  of  the  Copts  met  together  and  made 
peace  with  'Amr,  son  of  'Asi,  on  the  terms  that  they  should  pay  tribute." 
J.  Karabacek  has  written  a  monograph  on  this  person,  using  newly  found 
Egyptian  documents  (Der  Mokaukis  von  Aegypten,  in  the  Mittheilungen 
from  Archduke  Rainer's  papyri,  pt.  1) .  According  to  him  George  Megauches 
was  a  Copt,  Imperial  governor  for  taxes  (Pagarch)  in  Lower  Egypt. 


THE   COPTIC   CHURCH   IN   THE  PAST      225 

master  of  Constantinople,  the  King  1  of  Rome,  whose  opinions 
were  those  of  the  Melkites,  whose  number  was  about  300,000. 
The  other  part,  consisting  of  the  great  mass  of  the  people  of  Egypt, 
called  Copts,  was  a  mixed  race,  so  that  it  is  no  longer  possible  to 
distinguish  whether  any  one  of  them  be  of  Coptic,  Abyssinian, 
Nubian  or  Jewish  descent.  All  these  were  Jacobites  [he  means 
Monophysites] ;  some  of  them  were  in  Government  offices,2 
others  were  tradesmen  and  merchants,  others  bishops,  priests  and 
such-like,  others  farmers  and  tillers  of  the  soil,  others  servants  and 
slaves.  Between  these  and  the  Melkites,  people  of  the  State,3  was 
so  great  enmity  that  they  hurt  each  other  by  betrayals,  and  even 
mutual  murders  took  place.  Their  number  4  was  several  hundred 
thousand,5  for  they  were  properly  the  people  of  the  land  of  Egypt, 
of  its  upper  part  and  of  its  lower  part."6  He  tells  us  further: 
"  The  Copts  sought  to  make  peace  with  'Amr  on  the  condition  of 
paying  tribute  ;  and  he  granted  this,  confirmed  their  possession  of 
lands  and  other  property,  and  they  helped  the  Moslems  against 
the  Romans  till  God  drove  these  in  flight  and  expelled  them 
from  Egypt."7 

The  immediate  result  of  the  Moslem  conquest  was  to  secure  for 
the  Copts  the  position  of  recognized  Christians  in  Egypt.  They 
had  long  been  persecuted  by  the  Melkites.  Now  the  position  was 
reversed.  The  conquerors  found  them  the  vast  majority  and 
preferred  them,  as  being  already  enemies  of  the  Roman  Empire. 
So  they  gave  them  every  advantage  over  the  Melkites.  The  Copts 
got  back  many  churches  out  of  which  they  had  been  driven  ; 
their  Patriarch  could  now  reside  openly  at  Alexandria,  or  where 
he  would.  The  Melkites  for  a  time  almost  disappear.  They  are 
the  avowed  enemies  of  the  new  Government,  and  are  trodden 
down,  almost  stamped  out.  Many  of  them  flee  to  lands  still  held 
by  the  Emperor,  some  turn  Moslem,  some  turn  Copt.  It  is  the 
darkest  hour  of  the  Orthodox  Church  in  Egypt.  We  have  seen 
that  at  this  time,  after  the  death  of  Peter  II  (c.  655),  the  Melkite 
Patriarchate  was  left  vacant  for  more  than  seventy  years  (p.  221). 

1  Malik  ar-rum.     They  always  call  the  Emperor  Malik. 

2  Kuttdb  al-mamlakah,  "  writers  of  the  kingdom." 

3  A  hi  adDaulah.  4  Of  Copts.  5  He  might  say  millions. 

6  Al-Makrizi  :  Ahbdr  kibt  misr  (ed.  cit.  p.  20  of  the  Arabic  text). 

7  lb.  p.  21. 

15 


226        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

It  is  not  till  long  afterwards,  when  all  have  settled  down  under  the 
Moslem  tyrant,  that  the  Melkites  reappear  as  a  small  rayah  in 
Egypt,  and  reclaim  their  property  and  rights. 

The  Copts  then  obtain  the  usual  terms  of  rayahs  or  dimmis 
under  Moslem  rule.  At  first  their  condition  was  not  altogether 
hopeless.  They  may  not  serve  in  the  army  ;  they  must  pay  the 
heavy  poll-tax.  They  may  restore  their  existing  churches,  not 
build  new  ones.  Their  churches  may  have  no  external  Christian 
sign  (such  as  a  cross)  ;  nor  may  they  ring  bells.1  They  may  not 
ride  a  horse  nor  bear  weapons.  It  is  death  to  convert  a  Moslem, 
to  speak  against  Islam,  to  seduce  a  Moslem  woman.  It  is  death 
for  a  Copt  who  has  once  accepted  Islam  to  return  to  the  faith  of 
his  fathers.  The  word  or  oath  of  a  Copt  may  not  be  taken  in  a 
law-court  against  that  of  a  Moslem.  It  is  death  to  rebel  or  to 
traffic  with  any  foreign  power  against  their  masters.  But,  if  they 
keep  all  these  conditions,  they  are  to  be  let  alone  and  not  perse- 
cuted because  of  their  faith.  They  are  not  to  be  forced  to 
apostatize  ;  even  a  Christian  woman  married  to  a  Moslem  is  to  be 
allowed  to  practise  her  own  religion.  They  become  a  subject 
"  nation  (mill ah)  "  in  the  usual  Moslem  sense.2  The  civil  head  of 
this  nation  was  the  Coptic  Patriarch.  He  was,  of  course,  himself 
subject  to  the  Moslem  governor  ;  but,  within  the  limits  the 
conqueror  allowed  him,  he  had  considerable  power  over  his  people, 
even  in  civil  matters.  Questions  of  wills,  marriages,  even  of 
property,  were  settled  by  his  courts.  Any  Copt  at  any  moment 
could  shake  off  the  Patriarch's  authority  and  join  the  ruling  class 
by  professing  Islam.  But  for  those  who  would  not  do  so  there 
was  considerable  internal  self-government  within  their  own 
nation.  The  Patriarch  had  rights  of  first-fruits  of  benefices  and 
of  tithes,  which  were  enforced  by  the  Government. 

1  The  Prophet,  and  after  him  his  True  Believers,  hated  bells. 

2  The  Moslem  Governments  (Arab  and  Turk)  always  count  a  man's 
"  nation  "  by  his  religion.  Each  religious  body  becomes  a  millah,  with  its 
own  administration,  in  civil  affairs  too.  If  you  profess  the  Monophysite 
faith  in  Egypt,  you  belong  to  the  Coptic  millah.  The  Moslems  would  force 
a  man  to  obey  the  regulations  of  his  own  "  nation  "  ;  it  was  (till  quite 
lately)  almost  impossible  to  pass  from  one  religious  society  to  another,  to 
become  a  Catholic  if  you  had  been  Orthodox,  for  instance.  The  Orthodox 
bishop  could  and  did  force  you  to  continue  to  obey  him.  All  through  the 
history  of  Arab  and  Turkish  government  this  difficulty  recurs. 


THE  COPTIC   CHURCH  IN   THE   PAST      227 

However,  all  this  represents  the  very  best  the  Copts  could 
expect.  At  intervals  under  a  humane  governor  they  enjoyed  so 
much  of  contemptuous  toleration  ;  but  we  must  remember  that 
all  the  time  they  were  utterly  at  the  mercy  of  an  alien  power, 
which  hated  and  despised  them.  Egypt  under  Moslem  rule  had 
even  for  a  Moslem  state  an  exceptionally  large  proportion  of 
fiendish  lunatics  as  governors.  Such  men  always,  besides  behaving 
abominably  to  their  own  co-religionists,  begin  torturing,  perse- 
cuting, massacring  the  helpless  Christians.  Even  a  good  governor 
often  acquired  conscientious  scruples  about  leaving  unbelievers 
in  peace.  So  the  story  of  the  Copts  under  Moslem  rule,  in  spite 
of  interludes,  is  really  one  long  and  sickening  account  of  horrible 
persecution.  During  this  time  enormous  numbers  apostatized. 
That  is  not  surprising.  It  was  so  easy,  during  a  general  massacre 
of  Christians,  to  escape  torture  and  death  by  professing  Islam. 
Then  it  was  death  to  go  back.  The  wonder  is  rather  that  any 
Copts  at  all  kept  the  faith  during  these  hideous  centuries. 

When  there  was  no  actual  persecution,  Copts  were  able  to  serve 
their  masters  in  many  ways  because  of  their  superior  civilization. 
One  of  the  commonest  professions  for  a  Copt  was  to  be  writer  (katib, 
secretary)  to  the  Moslem  governor  of  some  province.  The  Coptic 
katib  became  a  recognized  institution ;  even  now  in  Egyptian  books 
and  plays  he  appears,  generally  as  a  comic  character,  an  ingenious 
rascal,  whose  astuteness  is  finally  defeated  by  True  Believing 
honesty.  Meanwhile  the  Coptic  language  slowly  died  out.  When 
the  Arabs  came  all  Egypt  talked  Coptic,  except  a  handful  of 
Greek  Melkites.  Coptic  is  the  direct  descendant,  or  later  form, 
of  the  old  Egyptian  language  of  the  hieroglyphs.1  The  Arabs 
brought  their  own  totally  different  Semitic  speech  to  Egypt. 
This  became  the  language  of  the  governing  class  ;  Copts  had  to 
acquire  it,  in  order  to  talk  to  their  masters  ;  so  very  slowly  their 
own  language  disappeared.  It  did  not  disappear  altogether  till 
the  17th  century.  Now  it  exists  only  as  their  liturgical  language 
(p.  274).     All  Copts  talk  Arabic. 

1  As  a  matter  of  fact,  interest  in  Coptic  and  its  study  among  Europeans 
is  chiefly  due  to  its  usefulness  in  deciphering  the  hieroglyphs.  The  pro- 
nunciation of  many  words  represented  by  ideograms  is  made  conjecturally 
from  Coptic. 


228        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

3.  Under  the  Sunni  Khalifs  (639-969) 

We  have  seen  that,  at  the  moment  of  the  Moslem  conquest,  the 
Coptic  Patriarch  Benjamin  I  had  fled  (p.  223) .  The  last  act  of  the 
Roman  power  in  Egypt  was  a  great  attempt  to  force  reunion  on 
the  Monophysites  on  the  lines  of  Monotheletism  (p.  223).  Ben- 
jamin was  a  consistent  Monophysite,  and  resisted  this  compromise 
on  his  side  as  thoroughly  as  Catholics  did  from  theirs.1  He  fled 
to  the  usual  refuge  of  his  sect,  Upper  Egypt,  where  everyone  was 
Monophysite,  where  the  Melkites  could  not  get  at  him.  One  of 
the  first  things  'Amr  did  after  the  conquest  was  to  send  a  letter  to 
Benjamin,  a  safe-conduct  with  assurance  of  his  protection.2  This 
is  the  first  bara'ah  (berat)  given  by  a  Moslem  governor  to  a  bishop 
in  Egypt.  It  is  tragically  characteristic  that  the  immediate 
result  of  the  Moslem  conquest  should  be  to  free  a  Christian  bishop 
from  the  persecution  he  had  suffered  from  a  Christian  Government. 
Benjamin  came  out  of  hiding,  after  thirteen  years,  saw  'Amr, 
accepted  the  usual  humiliating  conditions  offered  to  him  and  his 
flock,  and  established  himself  at  Alexandria.  The  Copts  then 
obtained  possession  of  all  churches  formerly  held  by  Melkites.3 

Now  for  over  two  centuries  Egypt  was  a  province  of  the  vast, 
still  united  Moslem  Empire,  whose  head  was  the  Khalif  at 
Damascus.4  It  was  ruled  by  a  governor  (the  Amir  of  Egypt)  who 
could  be  removed,  imprisoned,  slain  at  the  Khalifs  pleasure, 
but  who  meanwhile  was  an  absolute  tyrant  over  all  the  land,  who 
(as  long  as  he  sent  sufficient  revenue  to  Damascus)  was  not  likely 
to  be  disturbed,  and  could  do  much  as  he  liked.  'Amr  was 
considered  not  to  have  sent  enough  money  to  his  master,  so  he 

1  This  is  the  result  of  all  these  compromises.  Zeno's  Henotikon,  the 
condemnation  of  the  Three  Chapters,  Monotheletism,  and  the  other  attempts 
of  the  same  kind  naturally  found  some  time-servers  who  agreed  to  what- 
ever the  Emperor  asked.  But  they  were  equally  obnoxious  to  conscien- 
tious Monophysites  and  to  conscientious  Catholics.  The  Monophysites 
would  be  content  with  nothing  less  than  the  total  repeal  of  Chalcedon  ; 
Catholics  would  not  allow  anything  less  than  its  complete  acceptance. 
Between  these  no  compromise  was  really  possible. 

2  AlMakrizi  (German  translation,  p.  51).  3  lb. 

4  The  sixth  Khalif  Mu'awiyah  (661-680)  made  Damascus  his  seat.  It 
remained  the  capital  till  his  dynasty  fell  in  749.  The  Khalifs  of  the  house 
of  '.\bbas  (749-1258)  lived  first  at  Kufah,  then  at  Bagdad. 


THE   COPTIC  CHURCH   IN   THE   PAST      229 

was  given  a  lower  place  ;  'Abdullah  ibn  Sa'd  was  made  Amir  of 
all  Egypt.1  The  new  governor  conquered  Nubia  and  gave  the 
Christians  of  that  land  a  document  of  protection,  with  conditions, 
which  is  a  good  specimen  of  the  terms  Moslems  gave  to  Christian 
dimmis.2 

The  Patriarch  Benjamin  died  in  639,  and  was  succeeded  by 
Agatho  (659-677).  He  converted  many  Gainites  (p.  220)  to 
normal  Monophysism,  and  rebuilt  the  great  church  of  St.  Mark 
at  Alexandria.3  Then  came  John  III  (677-686).  'Abdu-l'AzIz 
suddenly  demanded  a  hundred  thousand  pieces  of  gold  from  him, 
and  burned  his  feet  with  hot  coals  till  he  paid  all  he  could  raise — 
ten  thousand  pieces.4 

There  is  no  object  in  naming  all  the  Coptic  Patriarchs  who 
succeeded  to  this  ill-fated  throne,  who,  one  after  another,  bore 
torture  and  disgrace  to  make  them  pay  enormous  sums,  claimed 
without  the  shadow  of  an  excuse  by  the  tyrant.  A  few  specimens 
of  the  way  the  Copts  were  treated  during  this  dreadful  time  will 
be  enough.  Persecution  was  always  latent,  constantly  broke  out. 
In  the  time  of  Isaac  (686-689)  a  deputation  came  from  "  India  " 
asking  him  to  ordain  a  bishop  for  that  land.5  This  is  interesting, 
as  being,  apparently,  the  first  relation  between  the  Malabar 
Christians  and  Monophysites  (see  p.  360).  Alexander  II  (703-726) 
was  twice  branded  with  hot  irons  and  was  mulcted  of  six  thousand 
pieces  of  gold.6  At  this  time  there  was  a  fearful  persecution. 
'Abdu-1'Aziz  had  a  census  of  all  monks  made,  imposed  a  special 
tax  on  them,  and  forbade  anyone  in  future  to  become  a  monk. 
The  Khalif  'Abdu-lMalik  (692-705)  made  his  own  son  'Abdullah 
governor  of  Egypt.  'Abdullah  levied  enormous  taxes  on  all 
Christians,  which  he  then  doubled  and  trebled.  He  despoiled  and 
ruined  churches,  branded  strangers  on  the  face  or  hand.  Enor- 
mous numbers  of  Copts  died  of  starvation.  His  successor, 
Kurrah  ibn  Sharik,  continued  the  same  extortions.  These  two 
"  brought  on  Christians  evils  such  as  they  had  never  before 
suffered."  7      Under  Kurrah  a  great  number  of  Copts  tried  to 

1  S.  Lane-Poole  :    History  of  Egypt  in  the  Middle  Ages,  p.  20. 

2  Quoted  ib.  21-23.  3  AlMakrizI,  p.  52. 

4  Hist,  of  the  Pair,  of  Alex.  pp.  [268-269]. 

5  AlMakrizI,  p.  53.  •  Ib.  7  Ib. 


230        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

escape  their  misfortunes  by  flight  ;  so  he  sent  soldiers  to  watch 
the  harbours  and  kill  all  who  tried  to  escape.  Then,  goaded  to 
despair,  some  of  them  rose  in  open  rebellion.  This  was  put  down 
and  a  great  number  were  killed.1  A  law  was  made  that  every 
monk  should  bear  an  iron  fetter  round  his  wrist,  marked  with  his 
name  and  that  of  his  monastery ;  whoever  was  found  without 
this  fetter  had  his  hand  cut  off.2  'Usamah  ibn  Zaid  at-tanuhi 
"  upset  the  monasteries  and  caught  a  great  number  of  monks 
without  their  mark.  Of  these  some  were  beheaded  ;  the  others 
were  scourged  till  they  died.  Hereupon  churches  were  destroyed, 
crosses  broken,  and  the  idols,  of  which  many  were  found,  all 
smashed."3  Hisham  ibn  'Abdi-lMalik  (Khalif,  724-743),  who 
ruled  over  the  united  Moslem  Empire  at  the  time  of  its  greatest 
extent,  meant  to  be  tolerant  and  sent  orders  to  Egypt  that 
Christians  there  were  to  be  treated  fairly,  according  to  the  law  for 
dimmis.  But  the  Amir  Hanzalah  ibn  Safwan,  in  spite  of  this, 
carried  on  a  cruel  persecution.  He  increased  the  poll-tax  on 
Christians,  made  them  all  carry  a  mark  stamped  with  the  figure 
of  a  lion,  and  had  the  hand  of  everyone  cut  off  who  was  found 
without  it.4  There  was  another  rebellion  followed  by  a  massacre. 
A  bishop,  who  was  seized  and  commanded  to  pay  a  thousand 
pieces  of  gold,  was  hung  up  at  the  door  of  a  church  and  scourged 
almost  to  death,  till  his  friends  collected  three  hundred  pieces.5 
This  was  a  favourite  method  of  raising  money,  used  by  needy 
governors  throughout  this  period.  A  perfectly  inoffensive  bishop 
or  Patriarch  was  suddenly  seized  and  some  quite  impossible 
amount  of  money  demanded  of  him.  He  naturally  protested  that 
he  had  not  a  tenth  part  of  what  was  asked.  He  was  told  that  his 
friends  must  raise  it.  Meanwhile  he  was  kept  in  prison,  scourged 
and  tortured  till  as  much  as  the  sight  of  his  anguish  could  procure 
from  his  people  was  raised  ;  and  by  this  he  was  ransomed. 

Under  the  Khalif  Marwan  II  (744-750),  a  savage  tyrant  who 
particularly  hated  Christians,  the  persecution  became  still  fiercer. 
A  number  of  Coptic  nuns  were  torn  from  their  convents  and 
handed  over  to  the  soldiers.  MakrizI  tells  a  curious  story  of  one 
of  these  nuns  who  by  a  trick  saved  her  honour  at  the  price  of  her 

1  AlMakrizi,  p.  55.  2  lb.  a  j0    55_56. 

4  lb.  p.  56  ;   Hist,  of  the  Pair.  p.  [329].  5  lb.  pp.  [332-333]. 


THE   COPTIC  CHURCH  IN   THE  PAST      231 

life.  She  told  her  captor  that  she  had  a  wonderful  oil  which  made 
her  invulnerable.  Having  aroused  his  curiosity  about  this  oil, 
she  undertook  to  show  him  its  power.  She  anointed  her  neck  and 
told  him  to  strike  with  his  sword.  He  did  so  and  beheaded  her. 
So  she  died  (allowing  for  her  mistaken  conscience)  a  martyr.1 
The  Coptic  Patriarch  Michael  I  (Hail,  743-766)  spent  a  part  of  his 
reign  in  prison. 

So  far  the  Melkites  have  almost  disappeared.  Their  see  was 
vacant  since  the  death  of  Peter  II  (654).  The  Moslems  during 
this  time  acknowledged  only  the  Copts  as  the  Christian  dimmis  of 
Egypt.  In  spite  of  the  fierce  persecution  which  they  themselves 
suffered,  the  Coptic  Patriarchs  used  the  help  of  the  infidel  Govern- 
ment to  force  all  other  Christians  in  the  land  to  acknowledge  their 
authority  and  to  enter  their  communion.  So  we  have  the  curious 
spectacle  of  these  suffering  Copts  in  their  turn  worrying  Melkites 
and  Gainites. 

But  the  little  Melkite  community  was  never  quite  extinct. 
Now,  in  727,  they  elected  a  certain  needle-maker,  Cosmas,  to  be 
their  Patriarch  (727-c.  775).  Cosmas  and  his  friends  succeeded 
in  obtaining  recognition  asa"  nation  "  from  the  Amir.  Some  at 
least  of  their  churches  were  given  back  to  them  ;  so  from  now  the 
Melkites  have  a  fairly  regular  succession  and  reappear  as  a  small 
group  of  dimmis,  by  the  side  of  the  Copts.  But  the  persecution 
of  all  Christians  went  on.  Makrizi  continues  his  woeful  tale  of 
massacre,  famine,  scourging,  forced  tribute.  At  times  Christians 
are  reduced  to  eating  corpses  ;  2  there  are  spasmodic  attempts  at 
insurrection  followed  by  ghastly  general  massacres. 

During  the  reign  of  the  Coptic  Patriarch  Michael  I,  one  of  the 
schisms  occurred  which  frequently  interrupt  the  generally 
friendly  relations  between  the  Monophysites  of  Egypt  and  Syria. 
The  Jacobite  see  of  Antioch  was  occupied,  in  defiance  of  the  canons, 
by  Isaac,  Bishop  of  Haran,  in  754.  The  Copts  refused  to  acknow- 
ledge him,  and  broke  communion  with  the  Jacobites.  It  was  not 
restored  till  some  time  after  Isaac's  death  (see  p.  334).  We  have 
now  a  sufficient  idea  of  the  state  of  the  Copts  under  Moslem  rule. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  continue  the  tedious  story  in  detail.  It 
is    always  the  same  wearisome   series  of  ill-usage  of  all  kinds. 

1  Al-Makrlzl,  p.  57.  2  lb.  p.  57. 


232    THE   LESSER   EASTERN    CHURCHES 

One  Patriarch  succeeds  another  ;  one  after  another  has  to  pay 
extortionate  bribes.  Imprisonment,  scourging,  massacre  go  on  in 
sickening  uniformity.1 

4.  The  Fatimids  (969-1 171) 

In  the  10th  century  a  great  revolution  took  place  in  Egypt, 
after  which  the  country  for  two  centuries  accepted  a  different 
form  of  Islam  as  State  religion,  breaking  all  dependence  on  the 
Khalif  at  Bagdad.  For  a  long  time  a  party  among  Moslems  had 
secretly  maintained  the  hereditary  principle,  holding  that  the 
lawful  head  of  Islam  should  be  a  descendant  of  Mohammed, 
through  his  daughter  Fatimah  and  his  son-in-law  'Ali  ibn  'Abi- 
Talib.  These  are  the  Shi'ah  Moslems.2  They  would  not  acknow- 
ledge the  Khalifs  of  the  Ommeyad  house  at  Damascus,  nor  their 
successors  (since  749)  the  Abbasid  Khalifs  at  Bagdad.  Instead 
they  venerated  a  line  of  Imams  (Chiefs)  beginning  with  'Ali,  his 
two  sons  Hasan  and  Husain,  Husain's  son,  and  so  on,  by  hereditary 
descent  to  Mohammed  Abu-lKasim,  the  12th  Imam,  who  dis- 
appeared in  the  9th  century  of  our  reckoning.  The  Shi'ah  faith 
teaches  that  he  is  not  dead.  He  lives  hidden  somewhere  and  will 
one  day  return  as  the  Imam  Mahdi,  to  reward  his  faithful  and 
punish  the  wicked.3  Especially  under  the  Abbasid  Khalifs  did 
the  Shi'ah  make  secret  propaganda.  One  of  their  missionaries 
came  in  893  to  Western  Africa  (the  Mugrib,  Morocco)  and  there 
proclaimed  one  'Ubaidullah  as  the  true  Khalif.  This  'Ubaidullah 
professed  to  be  of  the  blood  of  the  Prophet,  through  Fatimah. 
He  begins  the  line  of  Fatimid  Khalifs.4     A  large  army  was  rapidly 

1  AlMakrizi  gives  details,  pp.  58-81. 

2  Shi'ah,  "  a  following  "  (collective).  They  now  form  the  official  religion 
of  Persia. 

3  This  is  the  normal  Shi'ah  faith,  held  by  most,  and  now  the  official  form 
in  Persia.  A  sect  of  Shi'ah,  however  (the  Isma'iliyah),  acknowledge  only 
seven  Imams.  There  are  other  schisms  among  them,  which  turn  on  the 
question  of  the  succession  of  the  Imam.  The  best  short  account  of  Shi'ah 
I  know  is  in  I.  Goldziher  :  Vorlesungen  uber  den  Islam  (Heidelberg,  19 10), 
pp.  208-230. 

4  'Ubaidullah  is  variously  represented  as  being  the  brother  of  the  12th 
Imam,  or  the  son  of  a  hidden  Imam  recognised  by  the  Isma'iliyah,  or  in 
other  ways  descended  from  Fatimah.  There  is  considerable  doubt  as  to 
who  he  was  really.     His  opponents  said  he  was  a  Jewish  impostor. 


THE   COPTIC  CHURCH   IN    THE   PAST      233 

gathered  together.  In  910  'Ubaidullah  was  proclaimed  in  Kaira- 
wan  ;  he  and  his  descendants  soon  held  all  Africa,  except  Egypt. 
The  fourth  Khalif  of  the  Fatimid  line,  Al-Mu'izz  (953-975) ,  invaded 
Egypt  in  969.  He  easily  conquered  the  country.  Then  he  built 
Cairo1  north  of  the  old  city  Fustat  (p.  224)  to  be  his  capital. 
Cairo  has  been  the  political  centre  of  Egypt  ever  since.  The 
Shi'ah  form  of  Islam  was  imposed  on  all  Egyptian  Moslems  ;  the 
name  of  the  Abbasid  Khalif  at  Bagdad  was  banished,  in  all 
mosques  prayers  were  said  for  Al-Mu'izz  as  lawful  Khalif.  The 
black  standards  and  hangings  of  the  Abbasids  were  replaced  by 
white,  the  Fatimid  colour.  Al-Mu'izz  was  recognized  in  the  holy 
cities  (Mecca  and  Medina)  and  in  Syria.  So  the  empire  of  the 
Abbasids  was  reduced  for  a  time  to  Mesopotamia ;  this  Fatimid 
invasion  struck  a  blow  at  their  declining  power  from  which  it 
never  altogether  recovered. 

The  Fatimids  reigned  in  Egypt  about  two  centuries  (till  1171).2 
Their  power  abroad  declined  rapidly.  Soon  they  lost  all  West 
Africa,  which  returned  to  the  nominal  allegiance  of  the  Abbasids. 
The  Abbasids  were  also  able  to  send  armies  to  Syria,3  so  that  there 
was  continual  righting  there.  But  Mecca  and  Medina  (the 
Higaz)  for  a  long  time  acknowledged  the  Fatimid  Khalifs  at  Cairo. 
In  Egypt  they  reigned  as  foreign  conquerors  supported  by  foreign 
mercenaries.  The  old  vigour  of  the  Arabs  had  now  declined. 
Both  rival  Khalifs  held  their  thrones  supported  by  foreigners 
converted  to  Islam,  who  were  bought  as  slaves  or  enlisted  as  a 
bodyguard.  From  the  nth  century  the  Selgvik  Turks  appear  on 
the  scene.  Enlisted  at  first  at  Bagdad  as  a  guard,  they  soon 
become  the  real  masters  of  the  feeble  Khalif.  In  1055  their  chief 
Tugril  Beg  is  acknowledged  and  prayed  for  as  Amir  and  lieutenant 
of  the  Khalif.  This  means  his  master.  Till  the  final  destruction 
of  the  Khalifate  of  Bagdad  (by  Hulagu  Khan  the  Mongol  in  1258  ; 

1  Al-Kahirah,  "the  victorious."  The  city  was  first  called  :  alMu'izzIyat 
alkahirah,  the  victorious  (city)  of  Mu'izz. 

2  For  their  names  and  dates,  see  S.  Lane-Poole  :  Hist,  of  Egypt  in  the 
Middle  Ages,  p.  116. 

3  Armies  of  new  tribes,  Turks  and  Kurds,  who  were  converted  to  Sunni 
Islam.  The  war  between  the  Abbasids  and  Fatimids  was  (like  nearly  all 
Moslem  warfare)  a  religious  one.  All  Sunnis  acknowledged  the  Abbasids, 
and  fought  for  them  ;    the  Shi'ah  were  for  the  Fatimids. 


234   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

see  p.  97)  the  Selguk  Turks  nominate  and  depose  Khalifs  as  they 
please.  In  Egypt,  too,  Turks  and  Berbers  are  employed  to  guard 
the  Fatimid's  throne.  From  this  time  the  Turkish  guard  play  a 
great  part  in  Egyptian  history. 

Under  the  Fatimids  the  Christians  enjoyed  on  the  whole  rather 
more  toleration  than  before.  But  their  condition  was  still 
wretched,  they  were  no  less  subject  to  outbursts  of  frightful 
persecution.  Al-'Aziz  (975-996),  son  and  successor  of  Al-Mu'izz, 
was  a  good  ruler,  specially  tolerant  to  his  Christian  subjects.  He 
had  a  Christian  wife  ;  he  made  her  two  brothers  Melkite  Patriarchs 
of  Alexandria  and  Jerusalem.1  The  Coptic  Patriarch  Ephraim 
(977-980)  was  a  favourite  at  court ;  he  obtained  leave  to  rebuild 
the  church  of  St.  Mercurius  (Abu-sSaifain)  by  Fustat.  Ephraim 
was  a  zealous  bishop,  and  took  steps  to  put  down  the  simony  and 
concubinage  which  were  then  rampant  among  his  clergy. 

After  Al-'Aziz  followed  his  son,  the  fiendish  lunatic  Al-Hakim  2 
(996-1021).  This  man  has  left  the  reputation  of  being  the  most 
appalling  tyrant  who  ever  sat  on  even  a  Moslem  throne.  He 
became  quite  mad,  and  persecuted  his  Moslem  subjects  almost  as 
cruelly  as  the  Christians.  His  mad  laws  and  examples  of  his 
ghastly  cruelty  may  be  read  in  Stanley  Lane-Poole.3  To  Chris- 
tians, both  Copts  and  Orthodox,  his  reign  marks  the  height  of 
their  long  persecution.  He  is  said  to  have  been  excited  against 
them  by  a  disappointed  Coptic  monk  who  had  wanted  to  become 
a  bishop.4  Moreover,  till  he  declared  himself  a  god,  he  was  a 
fanatical  Moslem.  Under  him  degrading  laws  about  dress,  which 
occur  earlier,  are  enforced  relentlessly.  First  he  made  them  wear 
yellow  stripes  on  their  clothes  ;  then  they  were  to  dress  entirely 
in  black.  Christian  men  had  to  carry  a  heavy  wooden  cross 
around  their  necks  ;  they  were  not  to  ride  a  horse,  their  asses  must 
have  black  trappings.  They  could  possess  no  slaves,  were  not  to 
be  rowed  by  Moslem  boatmen,  must  dismount  whenever  they  met 
a  Moslem.     Then  Hakim  began  to  destroy  all  churches,  or  to  turn 

1  S.  Lane-Poole  :   Hist,  of  Egypt  in  the  Middle  Ages,  p.  119. 

2  AlMansur  Abii-'Ali  AlHakim  bi'amrillah.  He  was  the  son  of  Al- 
'Aziz'  Christian  wife  ! 

3  Hist,  of  Egypt,  pp.  123-134.  See  also  S.  de  Sacy  :  Expose  de  la  Religion 
des  Dmzes  (Paris,  1838). 

4  Renaudot  :   Hist.  Pair.  Alex.  p.  388. 


THE   COPTIC   CHURCH   IN   THE   PAST      235 

them  into  mosques.  The  Moslem  adan  1  was  cried  from  the  great 
church  at  Cairo.  He  plundered  monasteries,  murdered  bishops, 
massacred  monks.  Enormous  numbers  of  Copts  apostatized  to 
escape  persecution.  Of  the  faithful  who,  in  spite  of  all,  clung  to 
their  faith,  Makrizi  says  :  "  troubles  came  upon  them  such  as  they 
had  never  yet  borne."  2  Makrizi  calculates  the  number  of 
churches  destroyed  by  Hakim  as  over  1030. 3  During  this  reign 
Christian  services  practically  stopped  in  Egypt.  At  the  end  of 
his  life  he  became  slightly  more  tolerant  towards  Christians.  He 
offended  Moslems  irreconcilably  by  declaring  that  he  was  an 
incarnation  of  God  ;  and  he  was  murdered  by  them  in  1021.  The 
end  of  this  monster  is  that  he  is  still  worshipped  by  the  astonishing 
sect  of  the  Druzes  in  the  Lebanon.  During  Hakim's  reign  the 
Coptic  Patriarch  was  Zachary  (ioo4-i032),who  managed  to  escape 
with  his  life  during  the  persecution.  Hakim  was  succeeded  by 
his  son  Ad-Dahir  (1021-1036),  who  reigned  justly  and  mercifully. 
Shenut  II  4  (1032-1047)  became  Patriarch  of  the  Copts.  The 
custom  had  arisen  of  paying  a  large  sum  to  the  clergy  of  Alex- 
andria who  elected  the  Patriarch.  He  also  had  to  pay  a  bribe 
to  the  Khalif.  The  Patriarchs  refunded  themselves  by  selling 
bishoprics  to  the  highest  bidder.  Simony  is  the  constant  vice  of 
the  Coptic  Church.  It  forms  a  main  subject  of  complaint  in 
nearly  all  Coptic  synods.  Shenut  II  was  a  specially  bad  offender. 
He  not  only  sold  holy  orders  openly,  but  he  made  a  synod  to 
declare  this  practice  lawful.  After  him  came  Christodulos 5  (1047- 
1077).  He  published  a  code  of  thirty-one  canons,  which  hold  an 
important  place  in  Coptic  canon  law.  For  instance  :  marriage 
is  forbidden  in  Lent,  baptism  and  funerals  on  Good  Friday  ;  no 
foreigner  may  hold  any  benefice  in  the  Coptic  Church  ;   Wednes- 

1  The  call  to  prayer. 

2  AlMakrizI  :  op.  cit.  63-65.  The  Jews  were  no  less  cruelly  persecuted. 
They  had  to  ring  a  bell  wherever  they  went,  and  to  wear  a  wooden  calf's 
head,  in  memory  of  their  adoration  of  a  golden  calf  under  Moses.  Moslems 
have  nearly  always  persecuted  Jews  even  more  cruelly  than  Christians. 

3  lb.  56. 

4  This  name  often  occurs  among  Copts.  In  Coptic  it  is  Shenut  (see  A.  J. 
Butler  :  Ancient  Coptic  Churches  of  Egypt,  i.  p.  352,  n.  2).  In  Arabic  it 
becomes  Shanudah  ;  Makrizi  writes  Sanutir  {op.  cit.  Arabic  text,  p.  27). 
In  Latin  it  is  Sanutius. 

5  In  Arabic  'Abdu-lMasih  ("  Servant  of  Christ  "). 


236        THE    LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

days  and  Fridays  are  fast-days  ;  Holy  Communion  must  be  given 
to  every  child  (except  in  case  of  impossibility)  immediately  after 
baptism  ;  marriage  with  a  Melkite  is  invalid,  unless  performed 
by  a  Coptic  priest.1  It  was  under  Christ odulos  that  the  story  of 
the  martyr  Nekam  occurred.  Nekam  was  a  young  Copt  who 
apostatized  to  Islam.  Then  he  repented,  returned  to  the  faith  of 
Christ,  refused  to  hide  himself,  or  to  accept  a  chance  of  life  by 
pretending  to  be  mad  ;  and  boldly  bore  the  death  (by  beheading) 
which  was  the  fate  of  everyone  who  renounced  Islam  for  Christian- 
ity.2 This  story  is  typical  of  many  others  which  honour  the  sect 
during  the  long  ages  of  its  oppression. 

Christodulos  established  himself  permanently  at  Cairo.  He 
made  the  churches  of  St.  Mercurius3  outside  Fustat  and  of  the 
Blessed  Virgin,  in  the  "  Greek  Street  "  (arRum)  at  Cairo,  his 
Patriarchal  churches.  From  his  time  the  Coptic  Patriarch  of 
Alexandria  has  resided  at  Cairo.  His  successor  is  said  to  have 
fixed  the  Patriarch's  dress — blue  silk  for  ordinary  wear,  red  silk 
embroidered  with  gold  for  festal  occasions.4  We  may  leave 
Christodulos  with  an  edifying  anecdote  about  him.  As  part  of 
the  spasmodic  persecution  which  fills  Coptic  history  he  was  once 
thrown  into  prison  till  he  had  paid  a  fine.  At  the  same  time  the 
Government  in  a  fit  of  zeal  erased  the  inscription  :  "In  the  name 
of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  one  God  "  5 
over  the  door  of  his  house.  The  Patriarch  had  to  let  them  do  so  ; 
but  he  said  :  "  You  cannot  erase  the  words  from  my  heart  "  6— 
which  is  the  attitude  of  the  Copts  during  their  centuries  of 
persecution.  Under  Christodulos'  successor,  Cyril  II  (1078-1092), 
a  great  number  of  Armenians  settled  in  Egypt.     The  Khalif 

1  More  of  Christodulos'  canons  will  be  found  quoted  in  Neale  :  Hist,  of 
the  Holy  Eastern  Church,  ii.  213-214. 

2  Neale  :    op.  cit.  ii.  215-216. 

3  Called  Abu-sSaifain  ("  father  of  the  two  swords  ")  in  Arabic,  because  he 
is  represented  as  brandishing  a  sword  in  either  hand.  The  monastery  and 
church  of  Abu-sSaifain  is  one  of  the  most  important  of  Coptic  buildings. 
It  is  described  at  length  in  Butler  :  Ancient  Coptic  Churches,  i.  pp.  75-154. 
The  legend  of  St.  Mercurius  will  be  found  ib.  ii.  357-360. 

4  MakrizI,  ed.  cit.  66-67. 

5  Arab-speaking  Christians  use  this  formula  (bismi-ldb  walibn  warruhi- 
Ikudus  alldhi-lwdhid)  constantly,  as  their  equivalent  to  the  Moslem  :  "In 
the  name  of  God,  the  merciful,  the  compassionate." 

G  S.  Lane-Poole  :   Hist,  of  Egypt,  p.  144. 


THE   COPTIC   CHURCH   IN   THE   PAST      237 

Al-Mustansir  (1036-1094)  made  an  Armenian,  Badr  alGamali 
(probably  a  Christian,  at  least  in  secret),  his  Wazir.  Badr 
governed  the  land  wisely  and  well  for  twenty-two  years  (1073- 
1094).  Many  of  his  fellow-countrymen  came  to  Egypt.  Al- 
though the  Armenians  have  always  held  rather  aloof  from  other 
Monophysites  (see  p.  414),  there  is  no  particular  reason  why  they 
should  do  so.  They  agree  practically  in  faith  with  the  others. 
An  Armenian  bishop  Gregory,  one  of  the  many  claimants  to  their 
Patriarchate,  came  to  Egypt  ;  he  and  the  Coptic  Patriarch  found 
that  their  faiths  agreed,  so  they  joined  in  communion  with  one 
another  ;  Cyril  II  was  able  to  proclaim  this  union  as  a  triumph 
for  Monophysism.  Since  then  there  have  been  various  lines  of 
Armenian  bishops  in  Egypt,  who  kept  irregularly  friendly  re- 
lations with  the  Copts.  It  is  specially  mentioned  of  this  Cyril 
that  he  took  pains  to  learn  Arabic — a  sign  of  the  gradual  dying 
out  of  the  Coptic  language. 

During  the  time  of  Cyril's  successor,  Michael  IV  (1092-1102), 
occurred  the  first  Crusade.  It  was  preached  at  the  Council  of 
Clermont  in  1096  ;  the  Crusaders  took  Jerusalem  in  1099.  Since 
we  are  so  much  concerned  with  Moslem  cruelty  towards  Christians, 
we  must  not  forget  on  the  other  side  the  ghastly  massacre  of 
Moslems  by  which  the  Christians  began  their  reign  in  the  Holy 
City.1  The  episode  of  the  Crusades  now  fills  the  history  of  the 
Levant  for  two  centuries,  till  the  last  possession  of  th^  Christians 
(Acre)  fell  in  1292.  From  several  points  of  view  the  Crusades 
affect  our  story.  The  Crusaders  were  fighting  against  both 
Khalifs- — of  Cairo  and  Bagdad.  The  Fatimids  in  the  eleventh 
century  held  Syria,  but  were  constantly  attacked  and  driven  out 
of  cities  by  Sunni  Turks,  who  fought  for  the  Abbasid  Khalif  at 
Bagdad.  This  disunion  among  the  Moslems  was  th?  great 
opportunity  of  the  Crusaders.2  Then  when  Saladin  overturned 
the  Fatimids  and  ruled  Egypt  and  Syria  under  the  Abbasid,  the 
Crusaders  turned  their  arms  against  Egypt.  The  Crusades 
further  brought  the  Eastern  schismatical  Churches  into  relation 

1  They  murdered  seventy  thousand  Moslems  when  they  took  Jerusalem. 

2  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Crusaders,  without  knowing  it,  chose  the  very 
best  moment  possible  for  their  attack.  Instead  of  meeting  a  strong,  united 
Moslem  power,  they  found  two  Moslem  forces  at  war  with  each  other. 


238   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

with  Catholic  Latins,  for  the  first  time  since  the  original  schisms. 
The  relations  were  not  happy.  The  Latin  knights  knew  very 
little  of  the  native  Christians,  except  that  they  were  stubborn 
heretics  out  of  communion  with  the  Pope.  So  on  the  whole  they 
ignored  them,  or  even  persecuted  them.  In  many  cases  they 
took  away  the  churches,  which  even  the  Moslem  had  spared. 
They  set  up  Latin  hierarchies  wherever  they  had  the  power,  and 
tried  to  harry  the  Easterns  into  reunion.  It  is  a  question  whether 
they  would  not  have  had  more  success  if  they  had  from  the  be- 
ginning proclaimed  themselves  champions  of  all  Christians  against 
Islam,  if  they  had  left  theological  issues  alone  for  the  time,  and 
had  respected  the  ecclesiastical  state  of  things  they  found,  while 
stirring  up  a  general  insurrection  of  Christians  throughout 
Palestine  and  Egypt.  There  were  still  enormous  numbers  of 
these.  On  the  other  hand,  the  native  Christians,  accustomed  to 
tremble  before  their  Moslem  masters  for  centuries,  showed  a 
capacity  for  bearing  persecution  meekly,  which  did  not  argue 
much  fighting-power  on  their  part.  Perhaps  the  only  result  of 
such  an  appeal  from  the  Crusaders  would  have  been  a  general, 
unresisted  massacre  of  Christians  throughout  the  Moslem  States. 
Another  point  to  remember  is  that  these  Eastern  Christians  were 
divided  among  themselves  into  bitterly  hostile  sects.  It  would 
have  been  difficult  to  unite  Nestorians,  Monophysites  and 
Orthodox,  difficult  to  persuade  them  that  the  Latins,  whom  they 
all  abhorred,  were  the  friends  of  all.  So  during  the  Crusades  the 
Copts,  as  the  other  Eastern  sects,  sit  quiet  at  home  and  watch 
the  fight  between  their  masters  and  these  strangers.  The  only 
results,  as  far  as  they  are  concerned,  are  an  increased  tendency 
to  persecute  among  Moslems x  and  a  further  complication  of  the 
ecclesiastical  position  by  the  establishment  of  Latin  Patriarchs 
and  bishops  in  the  East.  However,  there  was  eventually  one 
permanent  result.     In  spite  of  all,  the  Crusaders  were  not  always 

1  This  fell  rather  on  the  Orthodox  than  on  the  Copts.  The  Orthodox 
were,  theologically,  so  much  nearer  to  Latins  that  they,  almost  alone,  made 
certain  tentative  efforts  to  help  them.  The  Moslems  seem  always  to  have 
had  a  fairly  accurate  knowledge  of  the  issues  between  various  Christian 
sects  (alas  !  the  Christians  were  always  carrying  their  quarrels  before  Moslem 
Kadis)  ;  so  they  knew  this,  and  gave  the  Orthodox  a  particularly  bad  time 
during  the  Crusades. 


THE   COPTIC   CHURCH   IN    THE   PAST      239 

hostile.  The  priests  and  bishops  they  brought  with  them  did 
some  peaceful  missionary  work  among  the  schismatics.  So  from 
the  time  of  the  Crusades  we  date  the  first  beginning  of  restored 
relations  between  the  Christian  East  and  West,  the  first  intercourse 
of  friendly  letters  between  the  various  Eastern  Patriarchs  and  the 
Pope,  and  the  beginning  of  Uniate  Churches.  The  Copts  made 
no  advances  of  this  kind  ;  but  Nicholas  I,  Orthodox  Patriarch 
of  Alexandria,1  corresponded  with  the  Popes  Innocent  III 
(1198-1216)  in  1210  and  Honorius  III  (1216-1227)  in  1223. 2 
His  very  submissive  letters  are  one  of  the  many  examples 
of  attempted  reunion,  leading  up  to  the  formation  of  Uniate 
Churches.  It  was  the  upheaval  of  the  Crusades  which  eventually 
destroyed  the  Shi'ah  Fatimid  rule  in  Egypt,  restored  the  country 
to  Sunni  Islam,  to  a  nominal  dependence  on  the  Khalif  of 
Bagdad  and  practical  independence  under  its  own  Sultan.  The 
man  who  wrought  this  revolution  was  the  famous  Saladin. 


5.   Saladin  and  his  Successors  (1 171 -1250) 

Almalik  annasir,  Abu-lMuzaffar,  Salahu-ddunya  wa-ddin, 
Yusuf  ibn  Aiyub,3  called  by  Europeans  Saladin,  was  a  Kurd, 
son  of  a  chief  at  Mosul.  He  was  a  Sunni  Moslem,  holding  a 
commission  from  the  Abbasid  Khalif.  A  mighty  warrior,  on  the 
whole  a  just  ruler,  he  made  his  fortune  by  fighting  against  the 
Crusaders,  inspired  them  with  great  respect  for  his  valour  and 
chivalry,  and  left  his  name  that  of  the  Moslem  hero  most  famous 
throughout  Europe.4  First  he  asserted  the  Abbasid  authority  in 
Syria  ;  then  for  a  time  he  accepted  office  under  Al-'Adid  (1160- 
1171),  the  last  Fatimid  Khalif  in  Egypt,  causing  prayers  to  be  said 
for  both  Khalifs  in  the  mosques.     In  1171,  when  Al-'Adid  died, 

1  His  exact  dates  are  unknown.     He  was  reigning  in  1210,  and  in  1223. 

2  Lequien  :  Or.  Christ,  ii.  490-491  ;  Neale  :  Hist,  of  the  Holy  Eastern 
Church,  ii.  278-280. 

3  "  The  victorious  king,  father  of  '  Him  to  whom  victory  is  given  '  (AlMuz- 
affar,  his  son's  name),  Honour  of  the  State  and  of  Religion,  Joseph,  son  of 
Job."  Saladin  is  for  Salahu-ddin  (Honour  of  Religion).  The  Europeanized 
form  is  too  well  known  to  be  changed. 

4  See  Stanley  Lane-Poole  :  Saladin,  in  the  series  :  Heroes  of  the  Nations 
(Putnam,  1890). 


240        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Saladin  made  Egypt  return  to  the  Sunni  faith  and  the  obedience 
of  the  Abbasid  Khalif  (Al-Mustazi,  1170-1180).  But  by  now  the 
Abbasids  were  mere  figure-heads  politically.  They  kept  their 
spiritual  authority  ;  in  the  mosques  prayers  were  said  for  them 
as  Khalifs,  successors  of  Mohammed,  vicegerents  of  God  on 
earth.  But  practically  their  once  vast  state  was  breaking  up 
into  separate  kingdoms,  ruled  by  chiefs,  who  merely  went  through 
the  formality  of  securing  a  commission  as  Wazir  or  Sultan1  from 
the  Khalif.  So  Saladin,  though  acknowledging  the  spiritual 
authority  of  the  Abbasid  Khilif,  in  temporal  matters  was  really 
independent.  He  founded  a  dynasty  of  Sultans  of  Egypt  (the 
Aiyubids),2  which  reigned  nearly  a  century  (till  1252). 3 

Although  Saladin  was  so  chivalrous  and  sent  such  polite 
messages  to  his  noble  enemy,  King  Richard  Lion-heart,  he 
treated  his  own  Christian  subjects  harshly.  From  the  beginning 
of  Moslem  rule  in  Egypt  the  conquerors  had  been  obliged  to 
employ  the  better-educated  Copts  as  writers,  secretaries,  financiers, 
doctors,  architects,  and  so  on.  Throughout  their  oppression  we 
find  Copts  holding  high  places  in  the  Government  (p.  227). 
Saladin  tried  to  stop  this.  He  forbade  Christians  (and  Jews)  to 
hold  any  public  office.  He  renewed  laws  against  their  use  of 
bells  or  of  crosses  which  could  be  seen  outside.  He  forbade 
public  processions  of  Christians,  ordered  all  churches  to  be 
painted  black,  and  even  tried  to  stop  church  singing. 

The  Patriarch  Gabriel  II  (1131-1146)  drew  up  thirty  canons, 
which  are  part  of  Coptic  canon  law.4  Under  John  V  (1146-1164) 
began  a  controversy  which  troubled  the  Coptic  Church  for  some 
time.     This  is  the  controversy  about  Confession  and  Incense. 

1  Wazir  (Vizier)  originally  meant  a  porter  (wazara,  to  carry  a  burden)  ; 
then  it  became  the  general  name  for  a  chief  minister,  governor  of  a  province, 
high  official.  Sultan  is  really  an  abstract  word  meaning  "  power  "  (salita, 
to  be  hard,  to  rule).  Since  about  the  nth  century  (when  Turks  and  other 
foreigners  became  powerful)  it  is  given  as  a  title  to  their  chiefs  by  the  Khalif. 
Its  meaning  at  first  was  that  of  a  prince  under  the  Khalif  ;  but  many  Sultans 
soon  became  really  independent.  It  might  almost  be  translated  "  king." 
The  title  Sultan  was  so  long  associated  with  the  Chief  of  the  Turks  that  he 
still  keeps  it  as  his  usual  one,  although  since  the  16th  century  he  claims  to 
be  Khalif  too.     Henceforth  we  may  speak  of  the  Sultan  of  Egypt. 

2  Saladin  was  "  the  son  of  Aiyiib  (Job)." 

3  A  list  of  them  will  be  found  in  S.  Lane-Poole  :  Hist,  of  Egypt,  pp.  212- 
213.  4  Renaudot  :    op.  cit.  511-513. 


THE   COPTIC   CHURCH   IN    THE   PAST      241 

The  Copts  had  inherited  from  their  fathers,  like  the  rest  of 
Christendom,  belief  in  and  the  practice  of  sacramental  confession. 
But,  as  in  the  case  of  many  Eastern  Churches,  while  the  theory 
remained,  the  practice  gradually  became  rare.  Then  began  a 
curious  compromise.  Most  Eastern  rites  associate  the  use  of 
incense  in  the  liturgy  with  a  public  confession  of  sin.  The  idea 
is  fairly  obvious.  They  prayed  that  as  the  savour  of  this  incense 
goes  up  to  God,  so  may  our  humble  prayer  for  forgiveness  of  sins 
ascend  to  him,  so  may  he  send  down  on  us  in  return  grace  and 
pardon.  There  is  a  special  reason  for  this,  inasmuch  as  the 
incense  is  burned  at  the  beginning  of  various  services,  as  a  pre- 
paration for  some  solemn  act,  with  the  idea  of  hallowing,  purifying 
the  holy  place.  So  is  a  prayer  for  forgiveness  the  natural  pre- 
paration for  such  an  act.1  The  Coptic  liturgy  expresses  this 
connection  between  the  offering  of  incense  and  confession  of  sins 
very  plainly.2  So,  by  a  curious  confusion,  there  grew  up  the 
idea  of  an  inherent  connection  between  incense  and  forgiveness  ; 
the  incense  was  looked  upon  as  a  kind  of  sin-offering,  a  sacrifice 
which  atoned  for  sin.  Why,  then,  go  through  the  unpleasant 
process  of  confessing  to  a  priest,  when  the  burning  incense  ob- 
tained forgiveness  for  your  sins  ?  So  the  Copt  whose  conscience 
was  troubled  found  a  simple  way  of  recovering  the  grace  he  had 
lost.  He  simply  lit  a  thurible  in  his  own  house  and  confessed  to 
that.  Truly  the  path  of  salvation  is  easy  ;  but  it  cannot  be 
quite  as  easy  as  this.  The  abuse  had  become  common  by  the 
12th  century,  when  a  certain  priest,  Mark  Ibn  alKanbar,3  began 
to  preach  against  it,  urging  the  necessity  of  absolution  by  a 
priest.  John  V  defended  the  popular  abuse  and  excommunicated 
Mark.  There  was  strong  feeling  on  both  sides  ;  eventually  they 
took  the  unusual  course  of  appealing  to  the  Jacobite  Patriarch  of 
Antioch,  Michael  I  (1166-1199).4  This  is  a  strange  and  rare 
proceeding  ;  since  in  theory  a  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  stands 
above  his  brother  of  Antioch.     Michael  answered  ambiguously, 

1  As  in  the  Roman  rite  the  celebrant  begins  Mass  by  saying  Confiteor  and 
Misereatur.  2  E.g.  Brightman  :   Eastern  Liturgies,  p.  150,  etc. 

3  Makrizi  :    op.  cit.  p.  28  (Arabic  text).     Barhebraeus  calls  him  Markus 
bar  Kunbar  (ed.  cit.  i.  573-575). 

4  Michael  the  Great,  one  of  the  most  famous  and  important  Jacobite 
Patriarchs  (see  p.  329). 

16 


242    THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

but  on  the  whole  condemned  Mark.  Mark  then  turned  Orthodox, 
went  back  to  the  Copts,  turned  Orthodox  again,  and  then  wanted 
to  go  back  to  his  own  people  once  more.  But  this  time  they 
would  not  have  him  back  ;  he  died  in  obscurity,  apparently  out 
of  communion  with  everyone.1  After  his  time  we  hear  no  more 
of  the  absurd  abuse  he  attacked  ;  so  he  seems  to  have  accom- 
plished his  purpose.  But  confession  among  Copts  has  always 
been,  and  is  now,  a  rarely  used  Sacrament  (p.  279).  About  the 
same  time  we  hear  of  controversies  about  circumcision.  All 
Copts  circumcise  ;  but  they  argued  at  length  whether  this  should 
be  done  before  or  after  baptism. 

During  the  13th  century  the  Crusaders  repeatedly  attacked 
Egypt.  In  12 19  they  took  Damietta  ; 2  but  in  the  same  year 
they  were  driven  back.  In  1249  St.  Lewis  IX  of  France  (1226- 
1270)  invaded  Egypt  and  again  seized  Damietta.  It  is  well 
known  that  then  he  himself  was  taken  prisoner,  ransomed  by  a 
heavy  sum,  and  lost  all  his  conquests.  From  the  first  siege 
of  Damietta  (12 19)  dates  the  establishment  of  a  line  of  Latin 
Patriarchs  of  Alexandria,  who,  however,  soon  became  merely 
titular.3 

Cyril  III  (Coptic  Patriarch,  1235-1243)  was  one  of  the  worst  of 
his  line.  He  acquired  his  place  by  intrigue  and  bribery,  and 
practised  barefaced  simony  throughout  his  reign.  However, 
during  his  time  a  reforming  synod  was  held  and  canons  were 
drawn  up,  which  he  did  not  obey,  but  which  form  part  of  the 
Coptic  law.  These  canons  begin  by  a  profession  of  Mono- 
physism,  ordain  that  a  general  synod  be  held  every  year  during 
the  third  week  after  Pentecost,  that  boys  be  circumcised  before 
baptism,  that  a  complete  collection  of  canons  be  drawn  up,  and  so 
on.     The  collection  of  canons  was  duly  made.4     At  this  time  a 

1  A  very  hostile  account  of  Mark  Ibn  alKanbar  (accusing  him  of  many- 
strange  heresies),  by  Michael,  Metropolitan  of  Damietta,  will  be  found"  in 
Abii  Salih  (ed.  cit.  pp.  33-43). 

2  It  was  then  that  St.  Francis  of  Assisi  (f  1226)  came  to  Egypt,  seeking 
to  convert  the  Sultan  (Al-Kamil  Muhammad,  12 18-1238)  or  to  die  a 
martyr's  death.  He  succeeded  in  neither  ;  but  from  his  place  with  God 
he  must  rejoice  to  see  his  friars  for  long  centuries,  and  still  to-day,  the 
heroic  guardians  of  the  Catholic  faith  throughout  the  Levant. 

3  The  list  in  Lequien  :    Oriens  Christ,  iii.  1143-1146. 

4  Renaudot  :    Hist.  Pair.  Alex.  582-586. 


THE  COPTIC   CHURCH   IN   THE   PAST      243 

Coptic  bishop  (of  Sandafah)  apostatized  to  Islam.  To  the  eternal 
credit  of  the  Egyptian  Christians,  this  is,  during  thirteen  centuries 
of  cruel  persecution,  the  only  known  case  of  an  apostate  bishop. 
Cyril  III  further  made  a  great  quarrel  with  the  Jacobites  in 
Syria  by  ordaining  a  bishop  for  Jerusalem  to  minister  to  the 
Copts  ;  although  a  Jacobite  bishop  already  sat  there.  In  spite 
of  Jacobite  protests,  this  arrangement  still  lasts  (p.  335). 

During  all  this  time  the  wearisome  recurrence  of  fierce  persecu- 
tion against  Christians  continues.  There  are  over  and  over  again 
incidents  of  excited  mobs  massacring  Christians,  defiling  churches, 
robbing  Coptic  property.  And  even  when  no  massacre  wras 
going  on,  the  Copts  were  always  subject  to  the  same  humiliating 
laws  affecting  their  dress1  and  habits,  stamping  them  as  an 
inferior  caste.  During  all  this  time  there  were  apostasies  in  vast 
numbers,  to  escape  massacre.  Then  it  was  death  to  return  to 
Christianity.  Few  had  the  courage  to  risk  this  ;  so  the  number  of 
Copts  diminishes  steadily  ;  there  were  many  people  outwardly 
Moslems,  who  would  be  Christians  again  if  they  dared. 

Al-Makrizi  here  enlivens  his  pages  with  contemporary  poems 
about  the  Copts  : 

"  The  unbelievers  were  forced  by  the  sword  to  profess  Islam  ; 
But  as  soon  as  they  were  free  they  returned  to  unbelief. 
They  professed  Islam  for  love  of  money  and  peace  ; 
Now  are  they  free,  but  not  Moslems."  2 

Again  : 

"  The  unbelievers  are  forced  to  wear  bad  hats, 
Which  by  God's  curse  increase  their  shame. 
I  spoke  to  them  :    we  have  not  put  turbans  on  you  ; 
We  put  on  your  heads  old  shoes."  3 


1  The  law  was  made  and  repeatedly  enforced  that  Christians  were  to 
dress  in  black  and  wear  black  turbans.  Each  time  they  gradually  modified 
this  into  dark  blue,  which  became  the  special  Coptic  colour  (p.  253).  A 
special  part  of  their  dress  is  a  girdle.  This  appears  to  have  its  origin  in  a 
symbolic  linen  girdle  given  at  baptism  (Abii-Dakn  with  Nicolai's  notes  : 
ed.  cit.  pp.  51,  126-127,  162).  This  girdle  was  sometimes  commanded, 
sometimes  forbidden,  by  law.  But  they  always  wore  it.  One  of  the  names 
for  Copts  is  "  People  of  the  girdle  (Ahl-almantalkah),"  in  Italian,  "  Cristiani 
della  cintura." 

2  MakrizI,  p.  31  (Arabic  text).  The  last  lines  contain  two  plays  on  words 
such  as  Arabs  love  :  "  Aslamii  min  rawahi  mali  wa-riih  "  :  "  Fahum  sali- 
muni,  la  muslimun."  3  lb.  p.  32. 


244        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

So  the  wolf  made  fun  of  the  lamb.  The  Copt  had  no  answer  to 
this  pretty  wit  (it  is  ill  bandying  retorts  with  the  man  who  has 
the  weapons).  He  bore  it  meekly.  He  could  join  the  scoffers  in 
ten  minutes  by  making  the  Moslem  profession  before  the  nearest 
Kadi.  But  he  counted  the  faith  of  Christ  more  worth  having 
than  anything  else.  Whatever  happened,  he  knew,  like  the 
Patriarch,  that  "  You  cannot  take  those  words  from  my  heart " 
(p.  236),  and  he  bore  the  smiting  which  God  sent  him  through 
Islam,  and  waited  for  better  days.  It  is  true  that  he  was  a 
Monophysite  heretic  and  hated  Chalcedon  ;  but  can  we,  who  sit 
in  comfort  under  a  tolerant  Government,  ever  forget  what  he 
bore  for  his  Lord,  and  ours  ? 

6.  The  Mamluks  (1250- 1517) 

In  1250  another  revolution  gave  the  Copts  new  masters. 
We  have  seen  that  foreign  mercenaries,  chiefly  Selguk  Turks, 
originally  bought  as  slaves,  gradually  became  the  real  power  at 
Bagdad  (pp.  27,  233).  The  same  thing  happened  in  Egypt. 
Already  under  Saladin  there  was  a  guard  (half ah)  of  slave- 
soldiers  to  protect  the  Sultan.  About  the  same  time  as  the  Turks 
reduced  the  Khalif  at  Bagdad  to  being  a  mere  figure-head,  they 
seized  power  in  Egypt.  They  had  become  the  most  powerful 
force  in  the  country.  In  1250  they  murdered  the  Aiyubid  Sultan, 
Al-Mu'azzim  Turanshah,  and  set  up  the  widow  of  the  former 
Sultan  (As-Salih  Aiyub,  1240-1249).  This  lady  was  named  "  Tree 
of  Pearls"  (shagar-addurr) .  They  made  Tree  of  Pearls  marry 
one  of  their  officers,  who  took  the  name  Al-Malik  al-mu'izz ;  at 
first  they  allowed  a  boy  Al-ashraf  Musa  to  be  counted  as  fellow- 
Sultan  ;  but  he  was  deposed  in  1252.  The  anomaly  of  a  queen  in 
Islam  was  too  strange  to  last.  The  Khalif  at  Bagdad  (who  had 
once  had  Tree  of  Pearls  in  his  harem,)  sent  them  a  message  : 
"  If  you  cannot  find  a  man  to  rule  you,  I  will  send  you  one."  So 
they  murdered  poor  Tree  of  Pearls  in  1257.  From  now  begins 
the  rule  of  the  Slave -Sultans,  the  Mamluks,1  in  Egypt.  It  is 
a  curious  situation.  For  over  two  and  a  half  centuries,  till  its 
conquest  by  the  Ottomans  in  1517,  Egypt  was  ruled  by  Mamluk 
1  Mamluk  (pi.  mamalik),  one  of  the  usual  Arabic  words  for  "  slave." 


THE   COPTIC   CHURCH   IN    THE   PAST     245 

Sultans.  They  were  rich,  powerful  sovereigns,  who  brought  their 
court  to  a  high  state  of  culture  and  luxury.  And  they  were  all 
either  slaves  bought  in  a  public  market  or  the  descendants  of 
slaves.  There  was  no  kind  of  disgrace  in  being  a  Mamluk.  The 
Mamluk  soldiers  held  the  whole  country  in  their  power.  They 
set  up  their  own  officers  as  Sultans  ;  unless  a  man  were  one  of 
them,  he  had  no  chance  of  becoming  Sultan. 

The  time  of  Mamluk  rule  is  divided  into  two  periods.  The 
finest  regiment  of  the  slave-guard  was  that  of  the  Bahri 1 
Mamluks.  They  put  an  end  to  the  Aiyubid  dynasty  and  set 
up  their  officers  as  Sultans.  The  seventh  of  these  (Kala'un, 
1279-1290)  succeeded  in  founding  a  hereditary  dynasty,  so 
that  his  descendants  reigned  till  1390.  The  Bahri  Sultans 
really  ruled,  and  kept  their  fellow-Mamluks  under.  Then 
follows  a  second  line,  called  the  Burgi  2  Sultans.  This 
line  is  not  hereditary.  The  soldiers  set  up  one  officer  after 
another,  nearly  all  Circassian  slaves  (though  two  were  of  Greek 
blood).3  These  Sultans  had  no  power  over  the  army  which 
appointed  them.  The  foreign  soldiers  do  as  they  please  ;  the 
Government  becomes  anarchy  and  licence.  Under  it  Egypt,  both 
Moslem  and  Christian,  suffers  every  kind  of  misery,  till  in  15 17, 
the  Ottoman  Sultan  conquers  the  country,  adds  it  to  his  already 
vast  empire,  and  gives  it  what  is,  compared  to  the  former  state 
of  things,  the  advantage  of  normal  Ottoman  rule. 

The  most  famous  Mamluk  Sultan  is  Baibars4  (1260-1277).  He 
had  only  one  eye,  and  began  his  career  by  fetching  about  £20  in  the 
market.  He  had  belonged  to  an  Amir  called  Bundukdar,  who 
sold  him  to  the  Aiyubid  Sultan  As-Salih  Aiyub  (1240-1249) .  He 
murdered  his  predecessor  (Kutuz,  1259-1260),  and  became  a 
splendid  tyrant  of  the  Moslem  kind.     He  was  a  mighty  warrior, 

1  Bahr,  which  we  generally  translate  "  sea  "  or  "  lake  "  (the  Dead  Sea 
is  Bahr  Lut,  the  "  lake  of  Lot "),  is  also  used  in  Egypt  for  the  Nile.  The 
Bahri  (maritime)  regiment  was  so  called  because  its  barracks  were  on  an 
island  of  the  Nile  opposite  Fustat. 

2  Burg  is  a  castle,  in  this  case  the  citadel  of  Cairo. 

3  Hush-kadam  (1461-1467)  and  Timur-buga  (1467-1468).  Both  were, 
of  course,  Moslem^. 

4  As-Sultan  al-Maliku-zZahir,  Ruknu-dDunya  wa-Dln,  Baibarsu-lBun- 
dukdariyu-sSalihi  (the  Sultan,  the  manifest  King,  Prop  of  the  State  and 
Religion,  Baibars,  of  the  Archer,  of  Salih). 


246        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

fought  valiantly  against  the  Crusaders,  was  just  and  humane  to 
Christians,  raised  Egypt  to  a  great  and  powerful  state,  overran 
the  Sudan,  and  left  a  reputation  in  Egypt  second  only  to  that  of 
Saladin.  He  died  from  accidentally  drinking  a  cup  which  he  had 
prepared  for  someone  else.1  During  Baibars'  time  the  Mongols 
had  put  an  end  to  the  Abbasid  Khalifs  at  Bagdad  (p.  97).  He. 
then  brought  an  Abbasid  (Al-Hakim)  to  Cairo  in  1262,  and  set  him 
up  as  Khalif,  but  with  a  purely  spiritual  authority.  From  now 
till  1538  there  is  a  Sunni  Khalif  in  Egypt,  under  the  protection 
of  the  Mamluk  Sultan,  reverenced  by  all  Sunni  Moslems  as  their 
spiritual  head,  but  having  no  claim  to  temporal  authority.  It  is 
through  these  last  Abbasids  at  Cairo  that  the  Khalifate  comes  to 
the  Sultan  of  Turkey  (p.  248). 2  The  next  most  famous  Mamluk 
Sultan  is  Kala/iin  3  (which  means  a  duck),  1279-1290.  He  too 
had  been  a  slave  of  As-Salih.  He  succeeded  in  founding  a  dynasty 
in  his  own  family,  which  lasted  till  the  end  of  the  Bahri  Sultans 
(1390).  His  son  Halll  (1290-1293)  took  Acre,  the  last  possession 
of  the  Crusaders,  in  1292,  and  so  ended  the  episode  of  the  Crusades. 
The  period  of  the  Bahri  Mamluks  was  brilliant.  They  built 
splendid  mosques,  endowed  Moslem  colleges,  and  made  Egypt  the 
most  sumptuous  kingdom  in  Islam.4  But  the  fitful  massacre 
and  continual  persecution  of  Christians  went  on  under  them  as 
before.  During  all  the  14th  century  there  was  continual  fierce 
persecution.  In  1320  various  fires  burst  out  in  towns  of  Egypt. 
These  were  ascribed,  not,  it  appears,  altogether  without  reason, 
to  Christian  incendiaries.  There  was  enormous  excitement  among 
the  Moslem  mob.  Vast  numbers  of  Copts  were  massacred, 
churches  without  number  were  pillaged  and  destroyed.  For  a 
year  no  one  dared  to  celebrate  any  Christian  service  in  Egypt. 
Makrizi  says  that  persecution  was  caused  by  the  unparalleled 
insolence  of  the  Copts,  of  whom  one  (a  writer  in  a  government 

1  There  are  several  cases  of  this  in  Moslem  history.  If  you  habitually 
prepare  poison  for  other  people,  you  should  be  very  careful  to  keep  their 
drinks  separate  from  your  own. 

2  A  list  of  the  Khalifs  in  Egypt  is  given  by  Lane-Poole  :  Hist,  of  Egypt, 
p.  265,  n.  1. 

3  As-Sultan  al-Maliku-lMansur,  Saifu-dDIn,  Kala'un  al-Alfiyu-sSalihi 
(the  Sultan,  the  Victorious  King,  Sword  of  the  Religion,  the  Military  Duck 
of  Salih). 

4  A  list  of  the  Bahri  Sultans  is  given  by  S.  Lane-Poole  :   op.  cit.  p.  254. 


THE   COPTIC   CHURCH   IN    THE   PAST     247 

office)  dared  to  ride  (without  dismounting)  past  the  Al-Azhar 
mosque  at  Cairo  wearing  boots,  spurs  and  a  white  turban.1 

In  1389  a  great  procession  of  Copts  who  had  accepted  Islam 
under  fear  of  death  marched  through  Cairo.  Repenting  of  their 
apostasy,  they  now  wished  to  atone  for  it  by  the  inevitable  conse- 
-quence  of  returning  to  Christianity.  So  as  they  marched  they 
proclaimed  that  they  believed  in  Christ  and  renounced  Moham- 
med. They  were  seized,  and  all  the  men  were  beheaded  one 
after  another  in  an  open  square  before  the  women.  But  this 
did  not  terrify  the  women  ;  so  they,  too,  were  all  martyred. 

The  time  of  the  Burgi  Sultans  (1390-1517)  was  one  of  utter 
misery  for  all  Egyptians.  A  series  of  helpless  puppet-kings  was 
set  up  by  the  lawless  Mamluks.  These  kings,  constantly  deposed 
or  murdered,2  had  no  control  of  the  soldiers.  The  country  was 
in  a  state  of  anarchy  ;  the  soldiers  did  just  as  they  liked, 
plundered  and  slew  peaceable  citizens  of  any  creed  with  impunity. 
No  decent  woman  dared  go  out  of  doors.  And  the  unhappy 
Christians,  always  victims  of  Moslem  misrule,  naturally  suffered 
tenfold  in  this  state  of  things.  The  hideous  condition  of  the  state 
produced  continual  and  ghastly  famines  in  the  Nile  valley,  richest 
land  of  the  Levant,  which  had  once  supplied  corn  for  all  the  empire. 
Honest  Makrizi,  who  has  been  our  faithful  guide  so  long,  lived  at 
this  time  (he  died  at  Cairo  in  1441).  He  gives  a  lurid  description 
of  one  such  famine,  in  the  year  1403,  from  which  he  too  suffered.3 

The  only  Coptic  Patriarch  who  stands  out  in  this  period  is 
Gabriel  V  (1409-1427),  who  wrote  an  explanation  of  the  Coptic 
rite  and  reformed  their  liturgical  books.4  John  XI  (1427-1453) 
showed  some  desire  for  reunion  at  the  time  of  the  Council  of 
Florence  (1438-1439).  He  sent  John,  abbot  of  an  Egyptian 
monastery,  as  his  legate  to  the  council.  A  union  with  the  Mono- 
physites  of  Syria  and  Egypt  (called  Jacobites)  was  proclaimed, 
and  Abbot  John  signed  the  decree.5  But  the  union  fell  through 
almost  at  once,  or  rather  was  never  really  carried  out  in  Egypt. 

1  Op.  cit.  p.  78. 

2  S.  Lane-Poole  :   op.  cit.  p.  324,  gives  a  list  of  the  Burgi  Sultans. 

3  Hist,  des  Sultans  mamlouks  de  VEgypte  (ed.  by  M.  Quatremere,  Paris, 
1837),  i-  P-  v-  4  Or.  Christ,  ii.  499. 

5  Decretum  pro  Iacobitis  in  Denzinger  :  Enchiridion  (ed.  11),  Nos. 
703-7!5. 


248        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

7.  Under  the  Ottoman  Turks  (1517-1882) 

Meanwhile,  the  kingdom  founded  by  Osman1  (1281-1326)  on  the 
ruins  of  the  Selgiik  power  2  had  grown  to  a  mighty  empire.  It  was 
gathering  all  Moslem  states  in  the  Levant  under  its  power.  When 
Mohammed  the  Conqueror  entered  Constantinople  in  1453,  he  sent 
news  of  his  conquest  to  the  Mamluk  Sultan  at  Cairo  (Inal,  1453- 
1461).  Cairo  was  illuminated  in  honour  of  so  glorious  a  triumph 
of  Islam  ;  but  I  imagine  it  was  done  without  enthusiasm.  The 
power  of  the  Ottoman  Turks  was  becoming  a  very  serious  danger 
to  all  their  neighbours— Moslem  as  well  as  Christian.  It  must 
already  have  been  clear  that  they  would  swallow  up  everything 
until  they  were  resisted  by  a  greater  force  than  their  own  ;  every 
victory  they  gained  made  that  less  likely.  Then  for  half  a 
century  the  Ottoman  Sultan  was  too  busy  conquering  his  Christian 
neighbours  to  trouble  about  Egypt.  But  in  15 14  the  inevitable 
happened.  Selim  I  (15 12-1520)  picked  a  quarrel  with  Egypt, 
invaded  the  country,  in  1517  easily  conquered  Cairo  from  the 
effete  Mamluks,  and  so  made  himself  master  of  Egypt.  Tuman 
Beg,  the  last  Mamluk  Sultan,  was  hanged  ;  the  last  Abbasid 
Khalif,  Al-Mutawakkil  III,  was  carried  off  to  Constantinople. 
Later  he  was  allowed  to  return  to  Cairo  ;  he  died  there  in  1538, 
bequeathing  his  title  to  the  Turkish  Sultan.3 

We  have  noted  that,  after  the  abominations  of  the  later  Mam- 
luks, the  rule  of  the  Ottomans  came  as  a  benefit  to  Egypt.  Bad 
as  Turkish  rule  is,  it  was  better  than  the  anarchy  which  had  gone 
before.  From  now  till  Napoleon's  invasion,  Egypt  is  a  province 
of  the  great  Turkish  Empire.  A  Turkish  Pasha  was  its  governor. 
But  the  Mamluks  revived  their  strength  and  gradually  became 
again  a  great  power  in  the  land.  Their  chief  Amir  (the  Shai&u- 
lbilad)  4  was  always  a  dangerous  rival  to  the  Pasha.      In  1768 

1  'Utman.  2  The  Mongols  finally  crushed  the  Selgiik  Turks  in  1300. 

3  The  Turkish  Sultan's  claim  to  be  Khalif  of  all  Sunni  Islam  rests  solely 
on  this  bequest  of  Mutawakkil.  It  is  an  utterly  illegal  title,  as  every  honest 
Moslem  theologian  knows.  The  Khalif  has  no  power  of  leaving  the  Khalif- 
ate  to  whom  he  likes.  A  lawful  Khalif  must  be  at  least  an  Arab,  if  not 
of  the  tribe  of  Kuraish.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  original  idea  of  the  Khalif  - 
ate  is  utterly  bankrupt  since  Mutawakkil  died. 

4  "  Old  man  ( =Lord)  of  the  land." 


THE   COPTIC    CHURCH   IN   THE   PAST      249 

the  Mamluks  succeeded  in  driving  out  the  Pasha  and  making 
Egypt  independent  again.  But  this  only  lasted  four  years.  Then, 
as  usual  under  the  Porte,  the  province  became  very  nearly  inde- 
pendent. As  long  as  the  Sultan  was  acknowledged  in  theory, 
and  received  his  tribute  regularly,  he  took  no  trouble  about  the 
internal  affairs  of  the  various  provinces.  So  the  Mamluks  fought 
among  themselves  and  again  reduced  the  unhappy  land  to  its 
usual  state  of  misery.  Only  this  time  each  usurper  went  through 
the  formality  of  getting  an  appointment  from  Constantinople. 
Meanwhile,  the  Copts  have  scarcely  any  history.  For  one  thing, 
our  sources  have  come  to  an  end  before  this  time.  Makrizi  died 
in  144 1  ;  the  continuators  of  Severus  (in  the  History  of  the  Patri- 
archs) and  Renaudot's  compilation  from  them,  Wansleb  and 
Abu-Dakn,  give  nothing  but  a  meagre  list  of  Patriarchs.  This  is 
less  to  be  regretted,  since  from  what  we  know  of  the  general 
state  of  Egypt  and  of  all  Christians  under  the  Porte,  we  can 
imagine  the  lot  of  the  Copts  fairly  accurately.  They  became 
one  more  mill  ah  (nation)  of  rayahs,  like  the  others.  Their  bishops 
paid  the  usual  fee  and  got  their  berat  from  the  Government ;  the 
laity  paid  their  poll-tax.  Centuries  of  persecution  had  wrought 
the  natural  effect.  When  the  Moslems  first  entered  Egypt  in  the 
7th  century,  except  for  a  small  minority  of  Orthodox,  the  whole 
land  was  Coptic.  Under  the  Turks  the  Copts  had  become  a  mere 
handful  among  a  Moslem  population  (descendants  of  apostates)  ; 
the  Orthodox  were  a  still  smaller  body.  Both  suffered  from  the 
unruliness  of  the  rebel  Mamluks.  One  result  of  the  Turkish 
conquest  is  curious.  The  Turk  of  the  two  preferred  the  Orthodox 
to  the  Copts.  He  was  used  to  the  Orthodox.  He  had  millions 
of  them  already  in  his  empire.  They  acknowledged  some  kind  of 
vague  authority  on  the  part  of  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
who  was  the  Sultan's  creature  and,  in  any  case,  was  the  civil  chief 
of  all  his  co-religionists.1  So  the  Orthodox  were  the  Christians 
centralized  at  Constantinople.  The  Turk  gave  them  at  least 
equal  rights  with  the  Copts  ;  indeed,  he  was  inclined  to  be  on 
their  side  in  a  quarrel.  Under  the  Turk  the  Orthodox  community 
of  Egypt  revives  and  is  comparatively  flourishing  again  (as  far 
as  any  Christians  can  be  said  to  flourish  under  a  Moslem  govern- 

1  See  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  pp.  239,  284-285,  etc. 


250        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

ment)  ;  it  even  makes  some  converts  from  the  Copts.1  But  the 
Copts  were  not  worse  treated  than  other  rayahs.  For  about 
three  centuries  there  is  nothing  special  to  chronicle.  Then  comes 
the  series  of  events  which  form  the  history  of  modern  Egypt. 

In  1798  Napoleon  won  the  battle  of  the  Pyramids  and  made 
the  country  a  French  province  for  three  years.  In  1801  the 
English  drove  out  the  French  and  restored  the  authority  of  the 
Turks.  In  1805  Mohammed  'Ali  drove  out  the  Turkish  Pasha, 
massacred  the  chief  Mamluks,  and  founded  a  dynasty  of  Khedives,2 
who  still  rule  Egypt,  with  a  merely  nominal  dependence  on 
the  Turkish  Sultan.  Since  1882  Great  Britain  exercises  a  protec- 
torate over  Egypt,  which  differs  from  governing  the  country 
only  in  theory. 

This  period  has  at  last  brought  peace  to  the  Copts.  The  inter- 
ference of  Europe  means,  at  any  rate,  the  end  of  persecution  and 
decent  conditions  for  people  of  all  religions.  Now  the  Copts  have 
nothing  of  which  they  can  complain,  except  that  they  say  that 
we  favour  the  Moslems  at  their  expense  and  have  not  yet  given 
Copts  complete  equality  in  everything.3 


Summary 

The  fourteen  centuries  of  Coptic  history  are  one  long  story  of 
persecution.  From  the  time  the  Egyptian  Monophysites  organ- 
ized their  Church  after  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (452)  till  the 
English  took  over  Egypt  in  1882  they  have  been  cruelly  persecuted. 
For  the  first  century  they  were  persecuted  by  the  Roman  Empire, 
which  tried  to  make  them  Orthodox.  The  interludes  of  this 
persecution  are  the  moments  when  they  got  the  upper  hand  and 
retaliated  by  murdering  their  oppressors.  In  639  the  Moslem 
Arabs  conquered  Egypt  and  persecuted  both  the  rival  Churches 
of  Copts   and  Orthodox.     For  three  hundred  years   Egyptian 

1  The  great  affair  of  Cyril  Lukaris,  Patriarch  first  of  Alexandria  (1603- 
1620),  then  of  Constantinople  (at  five  intervals  between  1620  and  1638), 
does  not  concern  the  Copts  (Orth.  Eastern  Church,  pp.  264-268). 

2  Hudaiwi,  "  Lord  "  (from  hada,  "  to  march  "),  one  of  the  many  possible 
names  for  a  dependent  prince. 

3  This  is  the  complaint  of  Kyriakhos  Mikhail  :  Copts  and  Moslems  under 
British  Control  in  Egypt  (London:  Simpkin,  Marshall,  1911). 


THE    COPTIC   CHURCH   IN    THE   PAST     251 

Christians  groaned  under  the  tyranny  of  Amirs  of  the  Sunni 
Khalifs  (at  Damascus  and  Bagdad).  From  969  to  1171  Egypt 
has  a  Shi  ah  Khalif  (of  the  so-called  Fatimid  House)  of  her  own. 
The  Fatimids  are,  on  the  whole,  a  shade  less  outrageous  in  their 
treatment  of  Christians  ;  but  one  of  them,  the  unspeakable 
Hakim  (996-1021),  is  the  worst  persecutor  under  whom  Egypt, 
perhaps  any  country,  ever  suffered.  In  1171  the  great  Saladin 
restored  the  Sunni  faith,  and  set  up  a  line  of  practically  inde- 
pendent Sultans.  His  descendants  (the  Aiyubids)  persecuted 
too.  In  1250  the  slave-guard  (Mamluks)  get  the  upper  hand ; 
their  officers  reign  for  two  centuries  and  a  half,  during  the  latter 
part  of  which  time  anarchy  and  misrule  of  every  kind  reduce 
the  country  to  utter  misery,  and  the  Copts  suffer  again  untold 
misfortunes.  In  15 17  the  Ottoman  Turks  conquer  Egypt  and 
give  the  Christians,  not  real  toleration  nor  even  decent  treatment, 
but  a  rather  better  tyranny  than  they  had  yet  known.  It  was 
not  till  the  19th  century  that  European  interference  at  last 
brought  peace  to  the  Copts. 

During  all  this  time  the  line  of  Coptic  Patriarchs,  from  Dioscor 
and  Timothy  the  Cat,  continues  unbroken,  side  by  side  with  that 
of  their  Orthodox  rivals.  Both  lines  can  show  a  long  series  of 
pontiffs  who  bore  appalling  ill-usage  for  their  faith.  The  Coptic 
clergy  and  people  keep  alive  the  Christian  religion  almost  mira- 
culously through  the  long  centuries  of  ill-usage.  Their  old 
language  died  out,  except  in  the  liturgy  ;  they  all  learned  to  speak 
Arabic.  Enormous  numbers  apostatized  during  the  continual 
persecution,  but  not  all.  The  comparatively  small  number  which 
remain  are  those  who,  bearing  everything  with  that  extraordinary 
meekness  which  is  characteristic  of  the  native  Egyptian,  yet  never 
let  the  faith  of  Christ  be  quite  stamped  out.  What  they  have 
borne  for  it  we  can  hardly  conceive.  Honour  to  the  countless 
unknown  Coptic  martyrs  who  shed  their  blood,  to  the  still  greater 
number  of  confessors  who  bore  poverty,  imprisonment  and  torture 
for  the  Lord  of  all  Christians.  For,  when  the  last  day  comes, 
weightier  than  their  theological  errors  will  count  the  glorious 
wounds  they  bore  for  him  under  the  blood-stained  cloud  of  Islam. 


CHAPTER   VIII 


THE    COPTS    IN    OUR    TIME 


From  some  points  of  view  the  Coptic  Church  is  the  most  interest- 
ing of  all  in  the  East.  It  is  now  quite  a  small  body,  but  it  has 
wonderful  traditions.  The  Copts  are  the  chief  of  the  Monophy- 
sites.  That  heresy  began  in  Egypt— Egypt  was  always  its  centre. 
Except  the  Armenians  (who  in  many  ways  stand  apart),  all 
Monophysites  look  to  Alexandria  (or  Cairo)  as  the  stronghold  of 
their  faith.  So  the  Copts  form  the  other  great  Eastern  Church, 
which  we  can  compare  with  the  Orthodox— great  not  in  numbers, 
but  in  ecclesiastical  importance.  What  they  have  in  common 
with  the  Orthodox  we  may  put  down  as  generally  Eastern  ;  what 
they  do  not  share  is  specifically  Byzantine.  Indeed,  the  Copts  are 
archaeologically  more  important  than  the  Orthodox.  Coptic 
archaeology  is  the  most  curious,  the  most  ancient  in  Christendom. 
In  many  things  the  Copts  keep  an  older  custom  than  the  Orthodox. 
Among  Eastern  Churches  the  Orthodox  have  by  no  means  the 
most  ancient  stamp.  Their  rite  is  a  late  one  ;  during  their  years 
of  prosperity  (down  to  1453)  they  developed  and  modified  much 
of  ancient  Christian  custom.  But  the  Copts  are  wonderfully 
primitive.  Their  isolation,  the  arresting  of  their  development, 
happened  in  639.  During  the  centuries  of  their  obscurity  under 
Moslem  tyrants  they  have  attempted  nothing  but  to  keep  un- 
changed the  customs  of  their  free  fathers.  A  more  faithful 
picture  of  the  days  of  Athanasius  is  kept  in  a  Coptic  than  in  an 
Orthodox  church.  And  this  is  natural  and  right.  For  the 
Alexandrine  Patriarchate,  which  the  Copts  represent,  is  a  far  more 
venerable  see  than  the  upstart  Byzantine  throne  which  so  long 
domineered  over,  and  spoilt,  the  Orthodox  Church. 

252 


THE   COPTS   IN   OUR   TIME  253 


1.  The  Patriarch  and  Hierarchy 

We  are  now  clear  as  to  what  is  meant  by  a  Copt.  A  Copt  is 
a  native  Egyptian  who  is  a  member  of  the  national  Monophysite 
Church.  We  do  not  call  an  Egyptian  who  belongs  to  any  other 
religious  body  a  Copt,1  nor  do  we  so  call  a  Monophysite  who  is 
not  an  Egyptian. 

In  1900  the  total  number  of  Copts  was  estimated  at  592,374  ; 
that  is  about  one-fifteenth  of  the  whole  population  of  Egypt.2  By 
far  the  largest  group  is  in  Cairo  (27,546).  Alexandria  has  5338  ; 
the  rest  are  scattered  through  towns  and  villages  of  Lower, 
Middle,  and  Upper  Egypt.  After  Cairo  they  are  most  spread  in 
Upper  Egypt  (As-Siut,  Girgah,  etc.)  ;  here  in  many  villages  they 
form  the  majority  of  the  population.  They  all  talk  Arabic  ;  even 
the  clergy  know  very  little  Coptic  (p.  277)  ;  they  dress  in  the 
usual  Arab  dress,  a  long  shirt  down  to  their  feet  (sirbal,  kamls) 
girt  around  their  waist,  a  cloak  (mashlah,  'aba'),  and  a  turban. 
But  the  cloak  and  turban  are  nearly  always  dark  (black  or  blue), 
remnant  of  the  days  whey  they  were  forced  by  law  to  wear  dark 
colours.  The  tight  black  or  dark-blue  turban  is  characteristic  of 
Copts,  especially  of  their  clergy. 

The  most  remarkable  qualities  of  the  Copts  have  always  been 
their  power  of  reviving  and  their  comparative  prosperity,  in  spite 
of  fierce  persecution.  In  this  they  resemble  the  Jews.  Copts  have 
never  been  fighting  men.  They  have  lain  down  under  treatment 
which  would  have  driven  any  Western  race  to  desperate  resistance. 
So  the  Moslem  looks  upon  them  as  poor  creatures.  But  no  perse- 
cution could  extinguish  them.  We  read  of  ghastly  massacres, 
wholesale  confiscation  of  their  property  ;  then  a  generation  or 
two  later  they  are  again  a  rich  and  large  community,  ready  to 
be  plundered  again.  There  are  Coptic  peasants  (fellahfn)  who 
till  the  soil ;  but  their  leaders  are  rich  merchants  at  Cairo  and 
Alexandria. 

1  There  are  native  Egyptians  who  are  Latins,  many  who  are  Orthodox 
or  Byzantine  Uniate  (Melkite),  even  a  few  Protestants.  The  Uniate  Copts 
form  a  class  apart,  of  which  in  our  next  volume. 

2  K.  Beth  :  Die  ovientalische  Christenheit  der  Mittelmeerlander  (Berlin, 
1902),  pp.  129-130. 


254        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

All  Copts  obey  their  one  Patriarch  (of  Alexandria).  In  theory 
they  admit  seven  Patriarchs,  four  greater  ones,  of  Rome,1  Alex- 
andria,2 Antioch,  and  Ephesus,  which  they  count  as  transferred 
to  Constantinople,  and  three  lesser,  merely  titular,  ones  :  Jeru- 
salem, Seleucia-Ctesiphon,  and  Abyssinia.3  But  of  these,  all, 
except  Alexandria,  Antioch  (of  course  the  Jacobite  see)  and 
Abyssinia,  have  fallen  into  Dyophysism  and  the  wicked  heresies 
of  Chalcedon  ;  so  they  are  separated  from  the  true  Monophysite 
Church.  The  Coptic  Patriarch  is  elected  by  the  twelve  bishops 
who  form  his  court.  He  is  always  a  monk,  generally  abbot  of 
one  of  the  chief  monasteries.  He  may  not  already  be  a  bishop. 
The  Copts  keep  the  old  law  which  forbids  the  transference  of  a 
bishop  from  one  see  to  another.  He  must  be  celibate,  the  son  of 
a  father  who  was  his  wife's  first  husband.  He  must  be  a  native 
Egyptian,  and  at  least  fifty  years  old.  What  happened  in  practice 
till  quite  lately  was  that  the  monks  of  a  chief  monastery  proposed 
someone  (usually  their  abbot)  and  the  bishops  elected  him.  Often 
there  was  only  one  candidate.  The  Patriarch  had  to  lead  an 
exceedingly  abstemious  life  ;  so  the  dignity  was  not  much  coveted. 
Indeed,  one  hears  of  the  elect  being  seized  by  force  and  chained 
up  in  Cairo  till  they  ordained  him.  The  election  was  made  by 
lot.     The  names  were  written  on  slips  ;  a  slip  was  added  inscribed 

1  It  is  perhaps  hardly  worth  noticing  that  every  Eastern  Church,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  acknowledges  the  Pope  as  first  Patriarch  and  chief  bishop 
in  Christendom,  and  also  as  Patriarch  having  lawful  jurisdiction  over  all 
the  West.  The  idea,  which  one  sometimes  hears  from  Anglicans,  that  all 
bishops  are  equal,  is  unknown  to  any  ancient  Church.  They  all  have  the 
most  definite  idea  of  a  graduated  hierarchy  among  bishops  ;  Metropolitans, 
Exarchs,  and  Patriarchs  lord  it  over  their  suffragans,  generally  tyrannically. 
They  are  not  really  far  from  our  concept  of  the  Papacy.  They  have  only 
to  add  that  the  chief  Patriarch  has  jurisdiction  over  the  other  Patriarchs, 
as  these  have  over  Metropolitans,  as  Metropolitans  have  over  simple  bishops. 
The  Anglican  who  thinks  that  he  makes  a  great  concession  by  admitting 
that  the  Pope  is  the  chief  bishop  in  Italy  is  as  ludicrously  far  from  any 
concept  of  the  Eastern  Churches,  or  of  antiquity,  as  the  Presbyterian  who 
is  prepared  to  concede  that  a  bishop  is  the  chief  clergyman  in  larger  towns. 
The  standard  of  agreement  of  all  so-called  branches  of  the  Church  gives 
the  Pope  a  position  which  would  surprise  most  Anglicans.  Notably  it  gives 
him  jurisdiction  over  England. 

2  They  keep  the  old  order,  which  was  the  rule  before  Chalcedon,  counting 
the  Alexandrine  See  as  second  after  Rome  (Orth.  Eastern  Church,  pp.  g, 
42,  50,  etc.). 

3  Vansleb  :   op.  cit.  pp.  9-10  ;    Silbernagl  :    Verfassnng,  u.s.w.  p.  278. 


THE   COPTS   IN   OUR    TIME  255 

"  Jesus  Christ,  the  Good  Shepherd."  These  were  put  under  an 
altar  and  the  holy  liturgy  was  celebrated  on  it  for  three  days. 
Then  a  boy  drew  out  a  slip.  If  the  one  with  the  holy  name  was 
drawn,  this  was  a  sign  that  God  chose  none  of  the  candidates,  so 
new  ones  replaced  them.  In  the  past  the  election  was  often  made 
a  mere  form  by  the  intrusion  of  someone  whom  the  Moslem 
authorities  desired,  or  who  had  bribed  them.  Now,  the  Patriarch 
is  always  a  monk  from  the  great  monastery  of  St.  Antony  in  the 
Eastern  desert,  by  the  Red  Sea.1  The  bishops  choose  him  by  lot. 
He  receives  the  orders  of  deacon  and  priest,  and  is  made  an  abbot 
(kummus),  if  he  has  not  these  qualities  already.  He  is  then 
ordained  bishop  during  the  holy  liturgy.  The  eldest  bishop 
presides,  but  all  lay  their  hands  on  him.  He  is  enthroned, 
acclaimed  by  the  people,  and  gives  his  blessing.  The  Patriarch's 
full  title  is  :  "  Most  holy  Pope  and  Patriarch  of  the  great  city 
Alexandria  and  of  the  places  subject  to  Egypt,  of  Jerusalem  the 
holy  city,  of  Abyssinia,  Nubia,  the  Pentapolis,  and  of  all  places 
where  St.  Mark  preached."  2  But  there  are  alternative,  longer 
titles,  in  which  the  old  epithet,  "  Judge  of  the  world  "  occurs.3 
The  Patriarch  is  the  supreme  authority  in  his  Church.  He  can- 
not be  deposed  for  any  cause  ;  he  alone  appoints  and  ordains  all 
bishops ;  he  alone  consecrates  the  Holy  Chrism.  His  income  consists 
of  free  offerings,  to  which  every  Copt  contributes,  stole-fees  and 
stipends  for  ordinations,  also  of  considerable  funds  invested  for 

1  For  this  monastery  see  Butler  :   Ancient  Coptic  Churches,  i.  342-346. 

2  Vansleb  :  Hist,  de  1'E.glise  d'Alexandrie,  p.  27  ;  Silbernagl  :  op.  cit.  p. 
282  ;  Denzinger  :  Ritus  Orientalium,  li.  35-63,  gives  the  laws  for  the  election 
and  ordination  of  the  Patriarch,  from  Ibn  Nasal,  Abii-lBirkat,  etc. 

3  Vansleb  :  Hist,  de  l'£glise  d'Alexandrie,  p.  7.  The  title  "  Judge  of  the 
World  "  has  been  assumed  by  both  the  Orthodox  and  the  Coptic  Patriarchs 
of  Alexandria  ;  according  to  the  usual  account,  since  St.  Cyril  presided  at 
Ephesus.  Renaudot :  de  Pair.  Alex.  (Lit.  Or.  Coll.  i.  348-349).  "  Pope  " 
(irdinras)  is  simply  late  Greek  for  "  Father."  As  far  as  the  word  goes,  it 
might  be  assumed  by  any  bishop  or  even  priest  (as  in  Russia).  It  is  only 
gradually  that  titles  get  a  special  technical  sense.  The  sometimes  sug- 
gested derivation  from  Coptic  Pi-abba  (Abba  with  the  strong  article)  is 
fantastic  and  absurd.  The  title  Anbd,  used  for  saints,  and  now  given 
generally  only  to  the  Patriarch,  is  not  easy  to  explain.  It  is  generally 
understood  as  a  form  of  'APfias  (Syriac  :  Abba),  and  is  translated  "  Father." 
See  Wiistenfeld's  introduction  to  Al-Makrizi  (ed.  cit.  p.  6).  The  Arabic 
Abu  (Father)  in  Egypt  is  often  contracted  to  Bii.  This  form  (bii)  is  not 
inflected. 


256        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

his  use.  His  dress  in  private  life  is  the  usual  monastic  one,  a 
black  cloak  and  black  turban,  but  with  the  bishop's  pectoral  cross. 
Needless  to  say,  like  all  Eastern  clergy,  he  wears  a  beard.  Photo- 
graphs of  the  present  Coptic  Patriarch  show  him  wearing  a  number 
of  decorations  given  by  various  Governments  (this  is  a  weakness 
to  which  all  Eastern  prelates  are  subject),  and  holding  the  little 
cross  with  a  handle  with  which  he  blesses  people.1 

In  1844  there  were  thirteen  dioceses  under  the  Coptic  Patriarch, 
including  Khartum,  erected  in  1835  for  Nubia.2  Six  of  these 
bishops  have  the  title  Metropolitan.3  The  only  see  outside 
Egypt  is  Al-Kuds  (Jerusalem),  of  which  the  Coptic  bishop  lives 
at  Jaffa.  But  the  diocesan  administration  is  hardly  a  reality. 
Beth  says  :  "  One  cannot  speak  of  any  real  diocesan  administra- 
tion among  the  Copts  at  all."  4  Namely,  the  bishops,  in  spite  of 
their  titles,  live  at  Cairo  and  form  the  Patriarch's  Curia  ;  he  alone 
exercises  episcopal  jurisdiction  throughout  Egypt.  But  I  doubt 
how  far  this  is  now  true.  The  bishops  of  Jerusalem  and  Khartum 
certainly  reside  in  their  dioceses  ;  it  seems  that  the  present 
revival  in  the  Coptic  Church  includes  a  movement  towards 
making  bishops  look  after  their  flocks.  In  1897  the  Patriarch 
increased  the  number  of  his  episcopate  to  eighteen,  making  the 
abbots  of  the  four  chief  monasteries  bishops.5  All  bishops  must 
be  celibate,  so  all  are  monks.  They  dress  as  monks,  with  an  epis- 
copal pectoral  cross.  A  great  number  of  priests  are  ordained  in 
masses  without  any  preparation.  One  of  the  constant  reproaches 
against  this  Church  is  the  want  of  education  among  her  clergy. 
Many  priests  cannot  read  even  Arabic,  still  less  Coptic.  They  say 
the  Coptic  prayers  by  heart,  without  understanding  them  ; 
frequently  in  the  liturgy  the  Gospel  is  read  by  a  layman,  because 
the  priest  cannot  do  so.  Quantities  are  ordained  without  any 
provision  being  made  for  their  work  or  maintenance.     A  priest 

1  Such  a  photograph  may  be  seen  in  Archdeacon  Dowling  :  The  Egyptian 
Church,  p.  10. 

2  The  list  in  Silbernagl,  pp.  289-290  ;  cf.  Vansleb  :  Hist,  de  I'Eglise 
d'Alexandrie,  pp.  17-26. 

3  Butler  says  four  only  :  Alexandria  (separate  from  the  Patriarchate  ?), 
Memphis,  Jerusalem,  Abyssinia  (op.  cit.  ii.  313). 

4  Die  orientalische  Christenheit,  p.  133. 

5  Their  names  and  sees  will  be  found  in  Mrs.  Butcher  :  op.  cit.  ii.  429. 
Butler  (op.  cit.  ii.  318)  gives  only  fourteen  sees,  including  three  in  Abyssinia. 


THE  COPTS  IN  OUR    TIME  257 

may  be  married  (before  ordination)  to  a  virgin  ; x  after  ordination 
he  cannot  marry  again.  All,  except  monks,  are  married  and 
many  carry  on  some  mean  trade.  As  for  the  deacons,  Beth  says  : 
"  These  are  truly  miserable  creatures,  boys  thirteen  or  fourteen 
years  old,  often  blind  boys  who  are  ordained  as  some  sort  of 
provision  for  them." 2  The  minor  orders  (for  instance,  the 
Lectorate)  are  now  extinct. 

Egypt,  the  home  of  monasticism,  has  still  quantities  of  monks. 
As  among  the  Orthodox,  they  form  the  aristocracy  of  the  clergy. 
Only  monks  can  become  bishops.  They  abstain  always  from 
flesh-meat,  sing  the  divine  office,  and  do  manual  work.  There  are 
a  number  of  large  and,  archaeologically,  extremely  interesting 
Coptic  monasteries  throughout  Egypt,  which  are  the  homes  of  al] 
that  is  characteristic  in  the  sect.3  The  most  famous  Coptic 
monasteries  are  St.  Mercurius  (Dair  Abii-sSaifain,  see  pp.  268- 
269)  at  old  Cairo  ;  4  then  four  in  the  Nitrian  desert,  where  once 
was  a  great  number,  notably  AlBaramus,5  those  said  to  have  been 
founded  by  St.  Antony  and  St.  Paul  in  the  Eastern  desert  by  the 
Red  Sea,6  and  Dair  AsSuriani,  also  in  the  Nitrian  desert,  where 
Curzon  found  precious  manuscripts.7  The  abbots  of  AlBaramus, 
St.  Antony,  and  St.  Paul  are  now  bishops.  There  are  two  classes 
of  monks,  inasmuch  as  some  only,  who  aspire  to  higher  perfection, 
after  years  of  probation  receive  the  "  angelic  habit  "  and  are 
bound  by  severer  rules.  The  abbot  (kummus)8  is  appointed  by 
a  rite  which  looks  very  like  a  sacramental  ordination.  The  title 
kummus  is  also  given  as  an  honour  to  the  chief  priest  of  certain 
great  churches,  who  is  a  titular  abbot  or  archpriest.  Beth  even 
distinguishes  two  orders,  "  archpriests  "  and  "  priests."  9      But 

1  Secular  priests  are  invariably  married.  Indeed,  the  law  seems  to  imply- 
that  they  must  be.  Among  the  testimonies  required  before  ordination 
is  one  that  the  candidate  is  lawfully  married  (Butler  :  op.  cit.  ii.  319).  I 
am  not  sure  whether  a  Coptic  bishop  would  refuse  to  ordain  a  celibate  man  ; 
but  I  think  he  would.  2  Beth:  op.  cit.  134. 

3  Long  and  accurate  descriptions  of  these  will  be  found  in  A.  J.  Butler 
Ancient  Coptic  Churches  of  Egypt,  vol.  i. 

4  Butler  :   op.  cit.  i.  75-154.  5  lb.  286-340.  6  lb.  342-348 

7  lb.  316-326.  R.  Curzon  :  Visits  to  Monasteries  in  the  Levant,  chap, 
vii.-viii.  (ed.  6,  Murray,  1881),  pp.  98-113. 

8  From  riyov/jievos.     Copt :   hygomenos. 
0  Op.  cit.  p.  134. 

*7 


258        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

kummus  is  only  a  higher  title,  given  (as  is  that  of  archimandrite 
among  the  Orthodox  and  Melkites)  to  priests  who  are  not  really 
abbots  at  all ;  or,  as  we  have  monsignori,  honorary  officials  of  the 
Pope's  court.  There  is  also  a  special  rite  for  making  an  Arch- 
deacon,1 who  is  a  kind  of  vicar  general  to  the  bishop.  Both 
these  ranks  of  kummus  and  the  archdeacon  are  always  counted 
as  orders  of  the  hierarchy.     There  are  a  few  convents  of  nuns.2 

Lately  there  has  been  a  strong  movement  among  the  Copts  for 
reform  in  many  directions.  The  reforming  party  demand  better 
education  for  the  clergy  and  a  lay  right  of  control  in  certain 
matters,  particularly  in  finance.  This  is  undoubtedly  due  to 
European,  especially  to  English,  influence.3  The  conservative 
party  denounce  the  reformers  as  Anglicized  Semi-Protest- 
ants. American  Presbyterians  also  have  been  active  among 
the  Copts.  In  1890  they  opened  the  flourishing  Trunk  school, 
which  educates  numbers  of  Coptic  boys,  but  is  said  to  leave 
them  with  diminished  loyalty  towards  the  national  Church. 
The  English  Church  Missionary  Society  and  an  "  Association  for 
the  furtherance  of  Christianity  in  Egypt  "  have  done  the  same 
kind  of  work.  The  Patriarch  is  bitterly  opposed  to  these.  Forced 
by  their  rivalry,  he  has  at  last  opened  a  theological  school  at 
Cairo,  and  has  even  sent  two  students  to  the  Rhizarion  school  at 

1  Ra'is  shamamisah. 

2  Mrs.  Butcher  says  three  only  (The  Story  of  the  Church  of  Egypt,  ii.  p.  41 1). 
She  gives  418  as  the  total  number  of  Coptic  Churches  (ib.).  A  list  of 
monasteries  will  be  found  in  Silbernagl  :  Verfassung,  u.s.w.  p.  293.  There 
is  a  Coptic  Monastery  at  Jerusalem,  in  the  Harat  anNasara,  next  to  what 
English  tourists  call  the  Pool  of  Hezekiah. 

3  The  Church  Missionary  Society  sent  Mr.  Lieder  to  Egypt  in  1830.  Mr. 
Henry  Tattam,  an  authority  on  the  language,  who  wrote  a  Coptic  grammar 
(London,  1830),  came  in  1838,  made  friends  with  the  Copts,  and  wrote  a 
report  of  their  state  for  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  Curzon  came  in 
1833  ;  he  wrote  an  account  of  what  he  saw  in  his  Monasteries  of  the  Levant. 
A  Mr.  T.  Grimshawe  came  in  1839.  All  these  persons  worked  for  the  en- 
lightenment, but  also,  it  would  seem,  for  the  Protestantizing  of  the  Copts. 
Tattam  edited  a  book  of  Gospels  in  Coptic  and  Arabic  ;  Lieder  opened  a 
school,  which  had  to  be  closed  in  1848  because  of  the  hostility  of  the  Patri- 
arch. These  gentlemen  and  the  Church  Missionary  Society  have  rather 
spoiled  the  field  for  High  Church  missionary  effort.  It  has  been  proposed 
that  the  Archbishop  of  York  should  do  for  the  Copts  what  Canterbury  is 
doing  for  the  Nestorians.  But  the  Copts  understand  more  about  the  state 
of  the  Church  of  England  than  do  the  Nestorians,  and  they  are  suspicious 
of  what  High  Churchmen  tell  them  about  Anglicanism. 


THE  COPTS  IN  OUR   TIME  259 

Athens,  evidently  preferring  the  danger  of  Orthodox  teaching  to 
that  of  Protestantism. 

The  present  Patriarch  is  Cyril  V.1  His  family  name  is  Matar. 
The  last  Patriarch,  Demetrios  II,  died  in  1873.  At  that  moment 
the  agitation  for  reform  was  very  strong.  The  reformers  had 
drawn  up  a  scheme  for  the  establishment  of  councils,  composed 
of  both  clergy  and  laity,  to  administer  the  property  of  each  diocese. 
For  two  years  the  throne  was  vacant  while  the  reformers  and 
conservatives  struggled,  each  for  their  own  representative.  At 
last,  in  1875,  Cyril  V  was  chosen.  He  was  the  candidate  of  the 
reformers  ;  at  his  election  he  promised  to  admit  the  councils  and 
to  introduce  all  necessary  reforms.  But  he  has  bitterly  dis- 
appointed his  party.  Soon  he  abolished  the  councils,  shut  up 
schools,  and  showed  himself  in  every  way  the  most  hardened 
conservative.  He  is  fiercely  opposed  to  all  reforming  societies  ; 
he  has  excommunicated  their  leaders,  and  has  always  used  his 
authority  to  put  down  every  "  Anglicizing,"  modernizing,  or 
Protestant  tendency.  Both  he  and  his  rivals  have  constantly 
appealed  to  the  Government  against  each  other.  All  reforming 
Copts,  pupils  of  English  or  American  schools,  imbued  with  modern 
Western  ideas,  will  tell  you  that  there  is  no  hope  of  improving  the 
state  of  their  Church  while  Cyril  V  lives.  On  the  other  hand,  of 
course,  the  old-fashioned  people  say  that  this  ardent  spirit  of 
reform,  this  eager  desire  to  adopt  English  ideas,  really  means  a 
Protestant  tendency  which  is  a  grave  danger  to  their  venerable 
Church.  Lord  Cyril  V  still  reigns,  a  very  old  man.2  If  the 
reformers  succeed  in  making  one  of  their  party  Patriarch  when  he 
dies,  there  will  probably  be  startling  changes. 


2.  The  Coptic  Faith 

Copts  are  Monophysites.  There  is  not  the  least  doubt  about 
this,  though  their  Monophysism  is  of  the  more  moderate  (and  less 

1  Beth  calls  him  Cyril  XI  ;   I  do  not  know  why  (op.  cit.  131). 

2  I  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that  His  Holiness  is  a  pious  and  zealous 
prelate.  But  he  will  not  see  strangers.  When  you  go  to  his  palace  (next 
to  the  Coptic  Patriarchal  Church,  in  the  Darb  alwasah  at  Cairo)  he  sends 
you  his  blessing  by  a  secretary. 


260        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

logical)  school  of  Severus  of  Antioch  (p.  197).  As  in  the  case 
of  all  Eastern  Churches,  their  heresy  is  seen  most  plainly,  not 
directly  by  metaphysical  statements  concerning  nature  and 
person  (for  among  their  ill-educated  clergy  we  cannot  expect  to 
find  clear  ideas  on  such  difficult  points),  but  implicitly  by  their 
attitude  towards  historic  facts.  They  reject  and  abhor  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon.  They  detest  the  Dogmatic  Letter  of  St. 
Leo  I.  They  maintain  that  this  and  the  council  renewed  the 
impious  heresy  of  Nestorius.  They  declare  that  Catholics  and 
Orthodox  are  heretics,  because  we  accept  the  Dyophysite  errors 
of  Chalcedon.  They  venerate  the  memory  of  the  leading  Mono- 
physites — Dioscor,  Timothy  the  Cat,  Severus,  as  saints  and 
champions  of  the  true  faith  taught  by  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria. 
A  man  who  holds  these  views  is  a  Monophysite.  As  long  as  they 
had  a  literature  they  argued  against  what  was  defined  at  Chal- 
cedon. In  the  13th  century  a  Coptic  divine,  Ibn -nasal,  wrote  a 
treatise,  Collection  of  the  Principles  of  Faith,  in  which  he  argues 
against  Pagans,  Jews,  Nestorians  and  Melkites.1  Indifferent 
outsiders,  such  as  Makrizi,  understand  and  explain  the  difference 
between  three  kinds  of  Christians,  Nestorians,  Melkites  and  Copts, 
quite  accurately.2  Lastly,  the  present  authorized  Coptic  cate- 
chism contains  plain  Monophysism.  It  teaches  that  our  Lord 
"  became  one  only  person,  one  only  distinct  substance,  one 
only  nature,  with  one  will,  and  one  operation."3  Indeed,  in 
spite  of  the  modern  craze  for  denying  that  heretical  bodies 
really  hold  the  heresy  of  which  they  are  accused,  I  have 
not  yet  found  anyone  who  claims  that  the  Copts  are  not 
Monophysites.  That  may  come.  The  people  who  so  hotly 
maintain  that  Nestorians  are  not  Nestorians  may  quite  as  well 
take  up  the  defence  of  Monophysites.4  This  then  is  plain. 
Ignorant  sympathizers  with  this  ancient  and  venerable  Church, 
who  see  no  reason  why  Anglicans  should  not  join  in  communion 


1  Renaudot:   Hist.  Patr.  Alex.  p.  585. 

2  Al-Makrizi  :   Hist,  of  the  Copts,  ed.  cit.  p.  83. 

3  Tanwtr  almubtada'tn  fi  talim  ad-din  (The  Blossoming  of  the  Beginner 
in  the  Study  of  Religion),  by  the  Hegumenos  Filutha'us.  New  edition  at 
ths  Press  of  Tuflk  at  Cairo,  1629  (sera  mart.)  =1912  a.d.,  p.  23.    YJ\ 

4  This  has  already  happened  in  the  case  of  the  Armenians  (p.  425,  n.  3). 


THE   COPTS   IN   OUR   TIME  261 

with  it,1  must  first  make  up  their  minds  about  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon.  Reunion  with  the  Copts  is  only  possible  if  Anglicans 
turn  Monophysite,  or  succeed  in  converting  Copts  to  Chalcedon. 
This  last  case  may  be  ruled  out  at  once.  To  convert  Copts  to 
Chalcedon  is  just  what  Rome  does  ;  and  they  all  denounce  a 
Copt  who  abandons  Monophysism  as  a  renegade  from  his 
national  Church.  If  all  Copts  abandoned  the  special  teaching 
which  constitutes  their  sect,  that  would  mean  the  destruction  of 
the  very  body  which  Anglicans  call  the  Coptic  Church.  They  all 
protest  loudly  that  they  do  not  want  that.2 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  no  doubt  true  that  an  unsophisticated 
Coptic  priest,  or  even  bishop,  probably  understands  very  little 
about  the  issue  defended  at  Chalcedon.  If  you  showed  him  a 
Catholic  statement,  and  he  did  not  know  whence  it  came,  it  is 
quite  likely  that  he  would  say  it  is  correct.  This  only  means  that 
his  knowledge  of  all  theology  is  a  negligible  quantity. 

The  Copts  do  not,  of  course,  say  the  Filioque  in  their  creed. 
They  do  not  seem  to  have  considered  the  question  ;  3  but  they 
would  undoubtedly  now  describe  it  as  a  fresh  Latin  error,  only 
adding  a  slightly  darker  shade  to  people  who  are  already  black 
with  Chalcedonianism.  Needless  to  say,  they  altogether  reject 
the  Pope's  primacy  and  infallibility.  To  them,  as  to  all  scbis- 
matical  Easterns,  the  Pope  is  a  terrible  danger,  a  mighty  ogre 
who  wants  to  swallow  up  pious  Copts  and  turn  them  into  Latins. 
Nor  does  the  sight  of  the  Uniate  Copts  give  them  any  confidence. 

1  E.g  Mrs.  Butcher  :  ii.  411.  She  understands  so  little  of  what  Mono- 
physism means  that  she  calls  ignoring  it  "  to  face  the  facts  of  the  case." 

2  Dr.  Neale,  in  spite  of  his  prejudices  and  often  childish  diatribes,  at  least 
was  clear  on  this  point.  He  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  Coptic  sect, 
denounces  it  roundly  as  a  heretical  body,  and  wants  Copts  to  turn  Orthodox. 
We  should  say  :  Why  Orthodox  rather  than  Papist  ?  Neale's  diatribes 
against  Roman  schism  in  Egypt  are  very  quaint.  From  the  "  national 
Church  "  point  of  view  his  friends  the  Orthodox  are  just  as  much  schismatics 
as  Romanists  are.  But  the  erection  of  a  Latin  see  is  an  "  act  of  open 
schism  committed  by  Rome  "  {Holy  Eastern  Church,  ii.  288)  ;  yet  when  a 
man  turns  Orthodox  he  "  joins  the  Catholic  Church  "  {ib.  265). 

3  The  only  Eastern  Church  which  has  ever  seriously  discussed  the  Filioque 
is  that  of  the  Orthodox.  To  them  this  has  become  the  great  hindrance 
to  reunion  (or  the  next  greatest,  after  the  Papacy).  But  the  way  of  reunion 
to  Nestorians  and  Monophysites  is  blocked  by  so  much  greater  differences 
that  they  do  not,  so  to  say,  come  far  enough  along  it  to  arrive  at  the  Filioque 
difficulty. 


262   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

They  think  that  Uniates  will  be  made  Latins  as  soon  as  the  Pope 
has  got  his  hand  in  ;  they  hate  them,  as  renegades  and  apostates, 
even  more  than  they  hate  us  who  were  born  in  Latin  darkness. 
Their  idea  of  the  Catholic  Church  is  hard  to  fathom.     In  principle 
they  should  say,  and  when  urged  they  do  say,  that  only  Mono- 
physites  are  the  true  Church  of  Christ.     But  practically  all  they 
demand  is  to  be  recognized  and  let  alone.     They  make  no  kind 
of  effort  to  convert  the  millions  of  Dyophysite  heretics  who 
surround  them.     In  vain  have  I  tried  to  make  Coptic  clergy  see 
that  they  ought  to  missionize  us  and  to  set  up  a  proper  Mono- 
physite  Patriarch  of  Rome.     When  one  assures  them  that  one  is 
not  offended,  they  will  admit  that  Pius  X  is  a  hardened  Dyophysite 
(which,  of  course,  he  is).     They  believe  that  St.  Peter  founded  the 
Roman  See,  and  that  his  successor  should  be  the  first  of  Patriarchs ; 
but  they  shake  their  heads  over  the  present  state  of  Rome.     I 
suppose  the  legitimate  Roman  Patriarchate  collapsed  when  Leo  I 
signed  his  Tome.     As  for  the  Immaculate  Conception,  they  have 
so  extreme  a  devotion  to  the  Blessed  Virgin,  and  are  so  convinced 
of  her  freedom  from  all  sin,  that  it  would  go  hard  if  they  did  not 
admit  her  freedom  from  original  sin  too.1     The  title  Theot6kos  is 
one  of  their  great  watchwords,  as  we  might  guess  from  its  origin. 
It  occurs  repeatedly  in  their  liturgy.     You  may  say  what  you  like 
about  a  Monophysite,  but  you  cannot  say  that  he  is  a  Nestorian. 
In  all  other  matters  they  agree  with  us,  except  that  they  share 
the  usual  Eastern  vagueness   on  many  points.     The  Eastern 
Churches  have  had  no  scholastic  period.     The  Copts  say  the 
Nicene  Creed  in  their  liturgy  and  understand  all  of  it  (except  the 
Filioque  and  the  "  Catholic  Church  ")  exactly  as  we  do.     They 
believe  in  the  same  Sacraments.     Mr.  Butler  puts  as  the  title  of  a 
chapter  in  his  book,  "  The  Seven  Sacraments."  2     Beth  says  this 
is  incorrect,  that  the  Copts  have  no  idea  of  a  special  category  of 
seven  "  mysteries,"  but  look  upon  every  ritual  action  done  by  a 
priest  asa"  mystery."  3     This  is  true  enough  ;  but  our  seven  are 
all  there  and  only  need  to  be  classified.     A  word  or  two  will  be 

1  I  know  one  Coptic  priest  who  said  that  he  certainly  believed  the  Mother 
of  God  to  be  free  from  all  stain  of  original  sin,  but  that  he  did  not  believe 
in  the  Immaculate  Conception,  because  that  is  what  the  Uniates  say. 

2  Ancient  Coptic  Churches,  ii.  chap.  vii.  p.  262. 

3  Oriental.  Christenheit,jp.  414. 


THE   COPTS   IN   OUR    TIME  263 

said  about  them  when  we  come  to  the  rites  (pp.  278-286).     The 
faith  of  the  Copts  in  the  Real  Presence  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired. 
Just  before  his  Communion  the  Coptic  celebrant  says  :    "  The 
body  and  blood  of  Emmanuel  our  God  this  is  in  truth.     Amen. 
I  believe,  I  believe,  I  believe,  and  I  confess  unto  the  last  breath 
that  this  is  the  quickening  flesh  which  thine  only-begotten  Son 
our  Lord  and  our  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  took  of  the 
Lady  of  us  all,  the  holy  Mother  of  God  St.  Mary."  x     It  may  indeed 
be  noticed  that  no  liturgy  in  Christendom  contains  such  categorical 
statements  of  the  real,  objective,  essential  change  of  bread  and 
wine  intothe  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  as  does  that  of  theCopts.2 
Two  unpardonable  errors  are  constantly  made  about  the  Copts  : 
namely,  that  they  do  not  pray  for  the  dead,  or  do  not  offer  the 
holy  Sacrifice  for  them  ;    and  that  they  do  not  pray  to  saints. 
They  pray  for  the  dead  explicitly  and  at  length  in  every  liturgy  ; 
as  soon  as  the  diptychs  of  the  dead  are  read  the  deacon  says  : 
"  Pray  for  our  fathers  and  our  brethren  who  have  fallen  asleep 
and  gone  to  their  rest  in  the  faith  of  Christ."  3     The  celebrant 
prays  :  "  Vouchsafe  to  grant  rest  to  all  their  souls  in  the  bosom  of 
our  holy  fathers,  Abraham  and  Isaac  and   Jacob,"  etc.4     Their 
funeral  service  is  full  of  prayers  for  the  dead.     But  they  share  a 
certain  vagueness,  common  in  the  East,  about  purgatory.     Any- 
how, all  we  could  demand  on  this  point  is,  at  least  implicitly, 
contained  in  their  prayers.     The  official  catechism  published  by 
Abuna  Filutha'us  (kummus  of  the  Patriarchal  Church  at  Cairo) 
contains  exactly  what  a  Catholic  would  say  :   "  (Q)  Are  (faithful) 
souls  (of  the  dead)  profited  by  prayers  and  good  works  ?     (A ) 
Yes.     The  prayers  of  the  Church  and  the  offering  of  the  holy 
Sacrifice  and  works   of   mercy   profit  those  souls  which   have 
passed  away  with  some  imperfections  and  faults  of  weakness 
(but  not  those  which  were  sunk  in  vice  and  hardness  of  heart 
and  have  not  done  penance  nor   asked  pardon).      This  truth 
has   been   held   by   the   universal   Church   of   Christ  from  the 
first    ages,    and   the   Church    of    Israel    bears    witness   in   the 
Book   of   Maccabees   that   Judas   Maccabaeus   offered  sacrifices 

1  Brightman  :   Eastern  Liturgies,  p.  185. 

2  lb.  pp.  177,  180,  181.  3  lb.  p.  169. 
4  lb.  p.  170. 


264        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

for  the  departed  soldiers." x  They  have  copious  indirect 
invocations  of  saints  in  their  liturgy.  It  keeps  the  archaic  form 
of  praying  for  saints.2  But  so  anxious  are  they  not  to  be  mis- 
understood that  the  celebrant  explains  to  God  :  "  Not  that  we, 
O  Master,  are  worthy  to  intercede  for  their  blessedness  who  are 
there  (in  heaven),  but  with  intent  that,  standing  before  the 
tribunal  of  thine  only-begotten  Son,  they  may  in  recompense 
intercede  for  our  poverty  and  weakness.  Be  the  remitter  of  our 
iniquities  for  the  sake  of  their  holy  prayers,  and  for  thy  blessed 
Name's  sake  whereby  we  are  called.' '  3  The  Coptic  Divine  Office 
is  full  of  direct,  explicit  invocation  of  saints,  addressing  them 
(especially  the  Blessed  Virgin)  with  exceeding  reverence,  with  a 
greater  accumulation  of  titles,  more  superlative  praise  than  can  be 
found  in  the  sober  Roman  Office.  Let  anyone  take  up  Mr. 
O'Leary's  translation  of  the  Daily  Office  ;  4  there  is  hardly  a  page 
which  is  not  full  of  examples.  I  select  one  at  hazard  :  "  Hail  thou 
who  hast  found  grace,  Holy  Mary,  Mother  of  God  :  blessed  art 
thou  amongst  women,  and  blessed  is  the  fruit  of  thy  womb.  Thou 
hast  borne  to  us  the  Saviour  of  our  souls.  Glory  be,  etc.  Holy 
John,  who  baptized  Christ,  remember  our  congregations,  that  we 
may  be  set  free  from  our  misdeeds.  Thou  hast  received  favour  to 
intercede  for  us.  Both  now,  etc.  Our  holy  fathers,  the  great 
Abba  Antony,  the  three  Abbots  Macarius,  our  father  Abba  John, 
our  father  Abba  Pishoi,  our  father  Abba  Pakhom,  our  father 
Abba  Theodore,  and  our  righteous  father  the  great  Abba  Samuel : 
intercede  for  us,  that  we  may  be  delivered  from  trouble  and 
distress  :  we  have  you  as  intercessors  before  Christ.  O  Mother  of 
God,  we  have  recourse  to  the  protection  of  thy  mercies  :  despise 
not  our  prayers  in  need,  but  save  us  from  destruction,  O  thou 
alone  blessed.     Lord  have  mercy,  etc.  (forty-one  times)."  5 

Copts  keep  relics  and  treat  them  with  great  honour.  They 
share  the  usual  Eastern  prejudice  against  solid  statues  ;  but 
their  churches  are  full  of  pictures  of  saints.  These  they  treat 
with  great,  we  should  almost  say  with  excessive,  respect.     Once 

1  Tanwir  almubtada'in,  ed.  cit.  p.  67. 

2  So  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  viii.  x.  7  (Brightman,  p.  10)  :  "  uvdp," 
which  word  is  ambiguous. 

3  Brightman,  p.  169;  cf.  187-188.  4  See  p.  279,  n.  1. 
1  From  the  Prayer  of  the  eleventh  hour,  op.  cit.  p.  105. 


THE   COPTS   IN   OUR   TIME  265 

they  had  an  Iconoclast  Patriarch.  Cyril  IV  (1854-1862),  in  many 
ways  a  reformer,  thought  his  people  guilty  of  idolatry.1  So  he 
made  a  collection  of  holy  pictures,  burned  them  publicly  and  told 
the  people  to  adore  God  alone.2  In  burning  valuable  pictures  he 
was  guilty  of  foolish  and  wasteful  conduct.  Nor  could  he  have 
burned  more  than  a  few.  Coptic  churches  are  still  full  of  old 
pictures.  But  he  would  have  found  his  Dyophysite  brother  at 
Rome  in  warm  agreement  with  his  warning.  We,  too,  have 
learned  that  we  may  not  adore  these  things,  for  they  can  neither 
see,  nor  hear,  nor  help  us.  Lastly,  the  Copts  are  vague  about  the 
Canon  of  Scripture.  They  include  in  it,  besides  our  books,3  the 
Epistle  of  Barnabas,  Hermas,  Clement  of  Rome,  various  Clemen- 
tine and  other  strange  apocryphas.4 

From  all  this  we  see  that,  except  for  their  Monophysism 
(which  is,  of  course,  the  great  question  of  all),  the  Copts  in 
matters  of  faith  occupy  much  the  same  position  as  the  Orthodox. 
They  differ  from  Catholics  in  little  except  Monophysism,  rejection 
of  the  Papacy,  and  perhaps  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
I  do  not  think  that  their  characteristic  heresy  occupies  nearly 
as  large  a  place  in  their  consciousness  now  as  it  did  in  that  of 
Dioscor  and  the  Cat.  The  cause  they  stand  for  with  ardour  is 
rather  the  existence  of  their  National  Church,  their  customs  and 
traditions,  and  a  vehement  rejection  of  the  Pope,  whom  they 
look  upon  as  a  foreign  tyrant  who  wants  to  make  them  all  his 
slaves,  to  Latinize  them  and  oppress  their  Patriarch. 


3.  Churches,  Ornaments,  Vestments 

We  have  noted  (p.  252)  that  Coptic  archaeology  is  a  special 
and  an  important  subject.  It  is  indeed  to  this  that  the  present 
sect  owes  its  importance.  Archaeologists  recognize  that  the  art, 
architecture  and  customs  of  the  Copts  are  not  merely  a  subdivision 
of  Byzantine  archaeology ;  they  are  an  independent  stream  full  of 

1  He  had  been  educated  in  Mr.  Lieder's  Protestant  School  (p.  258,  n.  3). 

2  Mrs.  Butcher  :   op.  cit.  ii.  398-399. 

3  They  admit,  of  course,  the  deutero-canonical  books. 

4  F.  Scrivener  :  A  Plain  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of  the  N.  Test.  (4th 
ed.  London,  1894),  9I~I44-  J-  M.  Fuller  :  "  Coptic  Church  "  in  Smith's  Diet, 
of  Christ.  Biography  (London,  1877),  i.  664-686. 


266   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 


its  own  interest,  in  many  ways  coming  down  unchanged  from  an 
older  type  than  that  of  the  Eastern  Empire,  in  some  a  living 

survival  of  ancient 
Egypt.  Egyptolo- 
gists are  more  and 
more  disposed  to 
study  the  Copts  as 
the  descendants  of 
the  people  who 
obeyed  Pharaoh.1 
What  follows  is  an 
outline  of  such  in- 
formation as  may 
help  to  understand 
their  services. 

A  Coptic  church 
has  no  external 
architectural  feat- 
ures. Outside  there 
no  sign  of  the 
domes  and  apses 
which  you  see  with- 
in, nor  even  (as  a 
rule)  of  the  exist- 
ence of  a  large  open 
space.  It  is  extern- 
ally a  jumble 
of  buildings  in 
no  order ;  rooms 
for  the  clergy 
and  their  fami- 
lies, sometimes  shops,  crowd  around  the  church  and  hide  it 
from  without.  You  go  in  by  an  inconspicuous  door  and 
are  surprised  to  find  yourself  in  a  large  and  handsome  church. 
This  elaborate  care  to  conceal  their  buildings  outside  speaks 
eloquently  of  the  centuries  of  persecution.     The  church  is  practi- 

1  A.  J.  Butler:  Ancient  Coptic  Churches  of  Egypt  contains  a  mass  of  inform- 
ation about  Coptic  archaeology.     A.  Gayet  :  L'Art  Copte  (Paris,  1902). 


fig.  6.- 


A,  Hig 
D,  Pulpit 


-PLAN  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ABU  SARGAH 

AT  OLD  CAIRO. 

1  altar  ;  B,  Stairs  to  crypt ;  C,  C,  C,  Lecterns  ; 
:   E.  Font ;  F,  Patriarch's  throne  ;  G,  G,  Tanks. 


THE   COPTS  IN   OUR   TIME  267 

cally  never  cruciform.1  It  is  a  long  hall,  generally  divided  by  two 
rows  of  columns  into  a  nave  and  aisles.  Over  these  columns  may 
be  either  an  entablature  or  arches.  Above  the  aisles  are  large 
triforia,  where  once  the  women  prayed.  Now  these  are  generally 
disused  or  walled  off  from  the  church  to  form  apartments  for  the 
priests'  families.  The  churches  are  always  orientated,  the  altars 
being  at  the  east.  At  the  west  is  first  a  narthex,  once  used  for 
catechumens,  penitents,  and  for  certain  offices.  Now  it  is  rarely 
used.  In  some  churches  it  contains  a  great  tank  ;  not  the  font, 
but  the  place  where  the  blessing  of  the  waters  on  the  Epiphany 
takes  place.  There  is  often  a  smaller  tank  for  ablutions  before 
entering,  as  one  sees  in  front  of  mosques.  Inside,  the  church  is 
divided  into  three  parts  by  screens  across  it  from  north  to  south. 
We  come  first  to  the  nave.  Here  are  divisions,  sometimes  light 
open  screens,  making  a  special  place  for  women.  They  occur  in 
various  directions  and  are  wanting  in  the  desert  monastic  churches, 
to  which  a  woman  would  hardly  come.  In  the  nave  sometimes 
stands  a  throne  for  the  Patriarch.  Beyond  the  nave  is  the  choir, 
generally  raised  a  step.  This  is  sometimes  cut  off  by  a  screen, 
generally  of  open  lattice-work,  often  adorned  with  holy  pictures. 
The  pulpit,  a  longer  platform  than  we  see  in  the  West,  stands  on 
the  north  side,  just  without  the  choir.  Beyond  the  choir  we 
come  to  the  sanctuary,  which  they  called  Haikal.2  This  is  again 
often  raised  a  step,  and  generally  (not  always)  has  a  screen  across 
it.  The  haikal  screen  corresponds  to  the  Byzantine  ikonostasion, 
except  that  it  does  not  carry  a  mass  of  pictures.  It  is  a  solid 
wall  of  wood,  generally  beautifully  carved  and  inlaid  with  mother- 
of-pearl  in  geometric  patterns.  It  has  three  doors  opening 
inwards  towards  the  sanctuary ;  in  front  of  them  hang  curtains  ; 
over  them  are  Coptic  or  Arabic  inscriptions.  The  pious  Copt  who 
visits  a  church  goes  up  to  the  haikal  screen,  prostrates  himself  and 
kisses  the  hem  of  the  curtain.  The  haikal  always  has  three 
altars  in  a  line.  This  marks  a  chief  difference  between  Coptic  and 
Byzantine  churches.  The  Byzantine  church  has  only  one  altar. 
In  the  Coptic  Church  the  side  altars  are  real  altars,  dedicated  to 
saints,  used  for  the  holy  liturgy  once  a  year,  on  the  saint's  feast. 

1  Mr.  Butler  found  only  two  churches  with  a  transept ;   op.  cit.  i.  22. 

2  The  usual  Arabic  name  for  "  temple." 


268 


THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 


Behind  each  altar  is  an  apse.1     At  least  over  the  central  altar  is 
nearly  always  a  low  cupola  ;   often  there  are  other  cupolas  over 


FIG.   7. CHURCH  OF  ST.  MERCURIUS   (ABU  SAIFAIn)   AT  OLD  CAIRO. 

THE  IKONOSTASION. 


the  side  altars,  or  down  the  nave.  Round  the  apses  behind  the 
altars  are  benches  for  the  clergy.  All  the  church  is  full  of  paint- 
ings and  mosaic.  Coptic  mosaic  is  an  exceedingly  beautiful 
thing.  Unlike  the  Byzantine  kind,  it  is  not  made  of  coloured 
glass  nor  of  opus  sectile.  It  consists  of  coloured  marbles  and 
mother-of-pearl  in  geometric  patterns.  There  is  nearly  always 
a  niche  in  the  apses,  sometimes  painted  with  a  figure  of  our  Lord, 
before  which  a  lamp  burns.  These  niches  are  not  used  for  any 
purpose  ;  they  look  curiously  like  the  mihrab  in  a  mosque.  High 
up  in  the  apse  are  frescoes  or  paintings  of  our  Lord  and  the  twelve 
apostles.  Along  the  top  of  the  haikal  screen  you  see  our  Lady 
with  her  Child  and  other  saints  ;  over  the  central  door  of  the  choir- 

1  These  apses,  each  with  its  altar,  form  really  two  separate  side  chapels, 
one  on  either  side  of  the  central  sanctuary  containing  the  high  altar. 


THE   COPTS  IN   OUR    TIME 


269 


screen  is  a  crucifixion  and  on  either  side  are  saints.     The  columns 
and  walls  are  adorned  with  paintings  of  saints  or  with  pictures 


FIG.   8. CHURCH  OF  ST.  MERCURIUS   (ABU  SAIFAIN)  AT  OLD  CAIRO. 

THE  HAIKAL. 


hung  up.  Coptic  painting  has  a  manner  of  its  own,  which  many 
artists  prefer  to  Byzantine  work.  The  pictures  never  have  the 
shield  of  metal,  pierced  for  the  face  and  hands,  which  protects 
Byzantine  ikons.  They  are  generally  painted  on  a  gold  back- 
ground. You  may  see  the  Blessed  Virgin  holding  her  Son,  in  a 
manner  which  suggests  vaguely  the  picture  at  St.  Mary  Major. 
You  see  venerable  pontiffs  with  long  white  beards,  dressed  in 
Coptic  vestments  and  holding  a  book,  or  St.  George  charging 
along  on  a  white  horse  killing  his  dragon.1 

The  altar  is  a  large  cube  of  stone,  or  built  up  of  bricks,  standing 
free  from  any  wall,  hollowed  out  underneath,  with  an  opening 
behind  (to  the  east) .     This  was  once  the  tomb  for  relics  ;  now  it  is 

1  Examples  of  Coptic  painting  may  be  seen  in  the  frontispiece  of  Mr. 
Butler's  second  volume.  In  modern  churches  one  often  sees  Byzantine 
(Russian)  eikons.     The  vestments  in  these  proclaim  their  origin. 


270        THE  LESSER   EASTERN  CHURCHES 

empty.  The  modern  Copts  do  not  put  their  relics  under  the 
altar,  but  keep  them  sewn  up  in  what  look  like  bolsters  about  the 
church,  mostly  under  the  pictures  of  the  saints.  The  altar  has 
a  sunk  space  on  its  table  into  which  a  wooden  board  is  let.  This 
board  is  consecrated  separately  ;  it  corresponds  to  the  Byzantine 
antimension,  and  is  in  fact  a  portable  altar.1  In  case  of  necessity 
it  may  be  used  on  a  common  table  for  the  holy  liturgy.  At  least 
over  the  high  altar  there  is  always  a  ciborium — a  cupola  of  wood 
on  four  columns.  The  altar  is  consecrated  with  chrism  in  an 
elaborate  rite.  It  is  covered  all  over  with  a  cloth  of  silk  or  cotton, 
dyed  any  colour  and  brocaded  or  embroidered.  At  least  during 
the  liturgy  there  must  be  a  second  cloth  over  this.  On  the  altar 
stand  two  candles  only,  though  others  may  stand  around,  and 
lamps  often  hang  from  the  ciborium.  No  cross  stands  on  the 
altar  ;  but  a  small  hand  cross,  used  for  blessing,  lies  on  it,  with 
the  gospel-book  and  vessels  used  in  the  liturgy.  In  the  haikal 
stands  a  reading-desk,  and  by  it  a  large  candlestick,  from  which 
the  thurible  sometimes  hangs.  The  desk  is  often  a  very 
beautiful  specimen  of  wood-carving  and  inlaid  mother-of-pearl.2 
It  has  a  cupboard  underneath,  in  which  the  books  are  kept.  The 
baptistery  with  the  font  (a  large  basin  not  unlike  ours)  forms  a 
side-chapel,  which  may  be  placed  almost  anywhere,  leading  out 
from  the  body  of  the  church.  In  the  church  hang  crowns,  which 
support  many  candles  and  a  number  of  lamps.  As  in  most  Eastern 
churches,  a  common  ornament  is  real  or  artificial  ostrich  eggs 
hanging  from  the  roof.  Strange  as  they  seem  to  us,  these  eggs 
form  a  very  decorative  feature.  Often  other  churches  open  out 
from  the  main  church,  each  having  its  complete  arrangement  of 
choir,  haikal  and  three  altars.  So  a  large  Coptic  church  is  often 
a  labyrinth  of  strange,  dark  chambers.  The  Copts  once  had 
church  bells  ;  some  belfries  and  even  a  few  bells  still  remain. 
But  the  Moslem  law  forbade  their  use ;  so  for  many  centuries 
they  have  used  a  Semantron  (a  wooden  board  or  metal  plate  struck 

1  So  the  Coptic  altar  is  the  exact  reverss  of  our  wooden  altare  portatile. 
This  is  a  wooden  frame  supporting  an  altar-stone  ;  they  have  a  stone 
frame  supporting  a  wooden  board. 

2  In  Mr.  Butler's  book  (op.  cit.  ii.  66-67)  m  lY  be  seen  illustrations  of  the 
reading-desk  and  candlestick  in  the  Patriarchal  church  (itself  a  dull  modern 
building)  at  Cairo. 


THE   COPTS  IN   OUR   TIME  271 

with  a  hammer)  instead.     But  in  the  church  they  strike  bells  as 
part  of  the  accompaniment  of  their  singing. 

The  instruments  used  in  the  liturgy  are  the  chalice,  paten 
(disk),  aster  (called  "  dome  "  in  Arabic),1  spoon.  These  are  the 
same  as  in  the  Byzantine  rite.2  The  ark  3  is  a  square  wooden  box 
which  just  holds  the  chalice  ;  at  the  consecration  the  chalice 
stands  in  this  box.4  They  have  several  round  veils  5  and  a  larger 
corporal 6  with  which  they  cover  the  oblata  during  the  liturgy. 
Their  fans  (like  Byzantine  rhipidia)  are  not  now  generally  used 
to  fan  the  Holy  Eucharist,  but  are  carried  as  ornaments  in  pro- 
cessions. North  of  the  altar  on  a  low  stand  are  the  basin  and 
ewer  with  which  the  celebrant  washes  his  hands.  They  have 
gospel-books,  which  are  carried  about  and  kissed,  but  cannot 
be  read,  because  they  are  so  bound,  or  rather  nailed  up,  in 
costly  metal  covers  that  they  cannot  be  opened.  This  was  done 
originally,  no  doubt,  to  preserve  a  specially  precious  copy.  Now 
there  seems  to  be  some  doubt  as  to  what  is  really  contained  in 
these  closed  covers.  Mr.  Butler  says  that  some,  on  being  opened, 
were  found  to  contain  nothing  but  a  few  tattered  pages  and  some 
fragments  of  silk.7  But  when  the  gospel  is  read  in  the  liturgy, 
such  a  closed  book  is  still  brought  with  great  honour  and  placed 
on  a  stand  with  lighted  candles  around  it.  The  deacon  standing 
by  it  reads  the  gospel  from  a  modern  copy  which  he  can  open. 

There  has  been  a  great  discussion  about  Coptic  vestments. 
Abu  Dakn,8  Vansleb,9  Renaudot,10  Denzinger11  give  accounts 
which  are  not  consistent.  Mr.  Butler  quotes  all  these  at  length, 
discusses  their  differences,  and  then  gives  an  elaborate  account 
of  each  vestment,  with  illustrations,  according  to  information 
gathered  from  Coptic  priests.12  His  erudition  and  laborious  care 
deserve  recognition.13    But  it  is  all  rather  superfluous.     What 

I  Kubbah.  2  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  408-409. 

3  Ar. :  KursI;  Copt. :  Pitote.  4  Butler  :   op.  cit.  ii.  42-43. 

5  Ar.  :  Hasirah  ;  Copt.  :  Pithom.         6  Ar.  :  Lafafah ;  Copt. :  Prosfarin. 

7  Op.  cit.  ii.  59.  8  Historia  Iacobitarum,  pp.  143-150. 

9  Hist,  de  I'Eglise  d 'Alex.  60.  10  Liturg.  Orient.  Coll.  i.  161— 163. 

II  Ritus  Orientalium,  i.  130.  12  Op.  cit.  ii.  chap,  iv.-v.  pp.  97-23. 
13  It  may  be  noted  that  throughout  his    two  volumes  [Ancient  Coptic 

Churches  of  Egypt)  Mr.  Butler  gives  the  reader  much  more  than  his  title 
promises.  In  every  detail  he  tells  you  all  about  parallel  customs  among 
the  Orthodox,  Armenians,  all  other  Eastern  Churches,  and   even   about 


272        THE   LESSER  EASTERN  CHURCHES 

emerges  finally  is  that  Coptic  vestments  are,  with  slight  differences, 
the  same  as  those  of  the  Byzantine  rite.  The  differences  are 
hardly  greater  than  in  the  shape  and  use  of  Roman  vestments  in 
the  West.  This  is  true  of  all  Eastern  rites.  We  may  say,  once  for 
all,  that  the  vestments  we  know  as  Byzantine1  are,  with  slight 
local  variations,  common  to  all  Eastern  Churches.  The  Coptic 
forms  are  as  follows  : 

They  are  of  any  colour  and  almost  any  material.  In  poorer 
churches  one  sees  cheap  calicoes  with  dreadful  sprawling  flowers 
printed  all  over  them  ;  richer  vestments  are  of  silk  (more  usually 
satin)  or  velvet  with  gold  and  silver  embroideries  or  braid.  White 
with  coloured  patterns,  pink  and  red  are  favourite  colours  ;  but 
sky-blue,  apple-green,  mauve,  are  not  uncommon.  In  general, 
modern  Levantine  taste  is  very  bad.  They  see  no  incongruity 
in  the  tawdriest  designs  and  flimsiest  material.  One  of  the  shocks 
the  Western  traveller  must  expect  is  to  see  a  venerable  Pontiff 
chanting  his  ancient  liturgy  vested  in  calico  covered  with  large 
pink  roses.  The  remains  of  ancient  Coptic  vestments  often  show 
exceedingly  beautiful  embroidery  in  colours,  all  the  more  exquisite 
because  it  is  faded  and  tarnished. 

The  deacon  wears  a  stichanon  (our  alb,  but  coloured) 2  with  a 
girdle  (the  Byzantine  £<oj/apioi/),3  which  is  not  a  rope,  but  a  belt  of 
coloured  stuff  (silk  or  velvet)  with  clasps.  From  his  left  shoulder 
hangs  a  stole  (wpapioj/).4  During  the  liturgy  he  winds  this  around 
his  body  as  does  his  Orthodox  rival.  He  wears  a  small  round 
cap.5  Clerks  and  singers  also  wear  a  sticharion  and  a  narrower 
orarion  wound  around  them,  again  just  as  in  the  Byzantine  rite. 
The  priest  who  celebrates  wears  a  rather  handsomer  sticharion 
and  girdle.  But  the  Coptic  priest,  unlike  the  Byzantine,  has 
an  amice.6    This  is  the  only  Coptic  vestment  unknown  to  the 

Roman  and  Sarum  use.  His  work  is  a  mine  of  general  information  about 
ecclesiastical  antiquities  in  general.  Unfortunately  the  authorities  he 
quotes  (Rock,  Marriott,  Bloxam,  Bock,  and  my  brother  E.  F.  K.  Fortescue) 
are  all  a  little  out  of  date  ;  so  that  much  of  what  he  says  is  antiquated. 

1  See,  for  instance,  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  405-408. 

2  Ar.  :   tuniyah  ;   Copt.  :   potirion,  mappa.     Butler,  ii.  109-117. 

3  Ar.  :   zunnar ;   Copt.  :   zounarion.     Butler,  ii.  124-127. 

4  Ar.  :   batrashll ;   Copt.  :   orarion,  shordion.     Butler,  ii.  127-143. 
6  Illustrated  in  Butler,  ii.  211. 

6  Ar.  :  shamlah,  tailasan  ;   Copt.  :  ballin,  efouti.     Butler,  ii.  11 7-124. 


THE   COPTS  IN   OUR    TIME 


273 


Orthodox.  It  is  much  larger  than  our  amice,  made  of  white  linen 
embroidered  with  two  large  crosses.  One  end  hangs  down  the 
back,  the  other  is  wound  round  the  head  to  form  a  hood.  The 
priest's  stole,  though  called  by  the  same  name  as  that  of  the 
deacon,  is  exactly  the  Byzantine  epitrachelion.  The  two  ends 
are  sewn  together  to  form  a  wide  band  which  hangs  down  in 
front,  while  he  puts  his  head  through  the  loop  left  at  the  top.1 
He  wears  epimanikia2  on  his  arms,  and  over  all  a  phainolion  or 
chasuble.3  In  Egypt4  the  phainolion  has 
gone  through  the  one  further  step  of 
evolution  at  which  in  the  Byzantine 
Church  it  has  not  arrived.  The  Byzantine 
chasuble  reaches  to  the  ground  behind ; 
it  has  been  cut  away,  not  as  with  us  at 
the  sides,  but  in  front,  so  that  it  is  quite 
short  here  and  forms  a  mere  broad  band 
across  the  chest.  In  the  other  Eastern 
Churches  this  band  has  been  cut  through, 
and  is  joined  by  a  clasp.  So  their 
phainolion  has  become  exactly  like  our 
cope  without  a  hood.  They  use  it  as 
both  chasuble  and  cope  (not  only  for  the 
holy  liturgy)  ;  but  historically  it  is  the 
old  planeta,  our  chasuble.  Copts  have  no 
epigonation.5  The  priest  does  not  now  FIG> 
wear  a  cap,  since  he  has  an  amice.     The 

bishop  wears  sticharion,  girdle,  epitrachelion,  epimanikia  and 
phainolion.6  He  has  a  special  amice  of  coloured  silk,  em- 
broidered with  texts,  which  he  wears  when  he  may  not  wear 
his  mitre  (on  Good  Friday,  in  the  presence  of  the  Patriarch, 
etc.).     He  has  a  mitre,  or  rather  crown,  of  metal  (silver-gilt),7  a 


9. A  COPTIC  BISHOP. 


1  Butler  shows  a  picture  of  one  at  p.  130  (vol.  ii.). 

2  Ar.  :    kaman  ;   Copt.  :   kamasion.     Op.  cit.  ii.  163-172. 

3  Ar.  :   burnus  ;    Copt.  :    felonion  (in  Greek  the  form  <\>ai\6viov  is  often 
found),  kouklion,  amforion.     Op.  cit.  173-200. 

4  And  also  among  all  other  Eastern  Churches. 

5  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  p.  406.  6  Now  often  a  sakkos  (see  fig.  9). 
7  Ar.  :  tag  (crown)  ;   Copt. :  mitra,  klam,  shripi.    Butler :  op.  cit.  ii.  200- 

217.     Butler  (ii.  205)  gives  an  illustration  of  the  present  Patriarch's  crown, 

18 


274   THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

pectoral  cross  (iyKoX-n-Lov),  which  should,  but  now  does  not, 
contain  relics,  also  a  crozier  (SiKavUiov)1  consisting  of  a  staff 
with  two  curving  serpents  at  the  top.  He  may  not  use  his  mitre 
or  crozier  in  the  Patriarch's  presence.  The  Patriarch  adds  to  the 
bishop's  vestments  only  the  omophorion.2  This  is  always  sewn 
together  in  the  form  of  a  broad  Y.  The  omophorion  is  now  also 
worn  by  other  bishops. 

These  are  the  official  vestments  given  at  ordination,  which 
should  be  worn  during  the  holy  liturgy.  But,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  poverty  and  carelessness  dispense  with  many  of  them, 
except  on  great  occasions.  In  a  small  church  on  an  ordinary 
Sunday  the  celebrant  usually  wears  only  the  alb,  amice  and 
stole,  the  deacon  (if  there  is  one)  alb  and  stole. 

4.   Liturgical  Books 

The  liturgical  language  of  the  national  Egyptian  Church  is 
Coptic.3  But  her  prayers  were  originally  in  Greek.  The  Coptic 
forms  show  the  plainest  traces  of  being  translations  from  Greek, 
and  there  remain  a  very  great  number  of  formulas  throughout  the 
services  which  are  still  said  in  Greek.  No  other  non-Greek  rite  is 
so  permeated  with  Greek  influence  and  phrases  as  that  of  the 
Copts.  There  is  a  curious  point  about  these  Greek  formulas. 
Not  only  are  quantities  of  short  ejaculations  and  prayers  (such 
as  Kvpce  iXerjaov,  So£a  crot  /a'pie,  the  Trisagion,  Gloria  Patri, 
Sanctus)  in  Greek,  but  most  commands  addressed  to  the  people, 
which  one  would  expect  to  be  in  their  language  ("  Look  towards 

sent  to  him  as  a  present  by  the  King  of  Abyssinia.  It  has  three  bands  of 
ornament  round  the  high  metal  cap,  and  so  shows  an  accidental  resem- 
blance to  the  Pope's  tiara. 

1  Ar. :    'akaz  ;   Copt.:  shvot.     Op.  cit.  ii.  217-231. 

2  Ar.  :  batrashil,  ballin  ;  Copt.  :  omoforion,  pallin,  ballin.  Butler  : 
op.  cit.  ii.  143-162. 

3  G.  Steindorff  :  Koptische  Grammatik,  2nd  ed.  1904  (Berlin  ;  Reuther 
u.  Reichard  :  Porta  linguarum  orientalium) .  An  easier  grammar  to  begin 
with  is  A.  Mallon,  S.J.  :  Grammaire  Copte,  2nd  ed.,  Beirut,  1907.  It  is 
an  exceedingly  difficult  language.  Since  the  3rd  century  it  is  written  in 
Greek  characters  (of  a  most  beautiful  uncial  form),  with  seven  additional 
letters,  taken  from  demotic  characters,  for  sounds  which  Greek  cannot 
represent.  There  are  five  Coptic  dialects.  The  liturgy  is  in  Bohairic,  the 
old  dialect  of  the  Nile  Delta,  and  the  most  important  in  every  way. 


THE  COPTS  IN  OUR   TIME  275 

the  East,"  "  Bow  to  the  Lord  in  fear,"  "  Peace  to  all,"  "  Salute 
each  other  with  a  holy  kiss,"  and  so  on),  are  Greek  too.  This 
means  that  such  short  formulas  were  so  well  known  and  universally 
understood  J  that  it  was  not  worth  while  to  translate  them. 
Moreover,  short  liturgical  formulas  always  have  less  tendency  to 
change.  In  the  Coptic  rite,  all  short  formulas  and  dialogues 
(e.g.  "  Sursum  corda,"  etc.)  and,  oddly,  most  rubrics  ("  the  deacon 
says,"  "  silently,"  etc.)  remain  Greek. 

That  the  Egyptian  service  was  originally  Greek  follows 
naturally  from  the  history  of  Christianity  in  this  country.  The 
Gospel  was  first  preached  at  Alexandria,  a  thoroughly  Hellenized 
city.  But  in  the  first  centuries  no  one  had  any  idea  of  a  special 
liturgical  language.  As  the  faith  spread  to  the  villages  of  Upper 
Egypt  the  same  prayers  were,  as  a  matter  of  course,  translated 
into  the  popular  language  of  the  country.  The  first  translators 
certainly  did  not  think  that  thereby  they  were  sealing  Coptic  as 
a  sacred  language,  and  giving  it  a  liturgical  life  which  would  last 
for  centuries  after  it  had  otherwise  died  out.  A  detail  of  the 
life  of  St.  Antony,  "  Father  of  Abbots,"  throws  light  on  the  date 
when  the  liturgy  was  first  celebrated  in  Coptic.  As  a  young  man 
he  heard  in  church  our  Lord's  words  :  "  If  thou  wouldst  be  perfect, 
go  sell  what  thou  hast,"  etc.,2  and,  applying  them  to  himself, 
went  to  be  a  hermit.3  Now  Antony  was  no  scholar  ;  he  was  a 
man  of  Upper  Egypt,  living  about  the  middle  of  the  3rd  century. 
He  must  have  heard  that  text  in  Coptic,  or  he  would  not  have 
understood  it.  So  at  least  the  gospel  was  read  in  Coptic  in  his 
time.  We  are  further  told  that  St.  Pachomius  translated  the 
psalms  into  Coptic  about  the  year  300  ;  4  and  there  are  further 
indications  in  Palladius  of  regular  services  among  the  first  Egyptian 
hermits,  which  must  have  been  in  their  own  language.  Certainly 
the  fathers  of  the  desert  knew  no  Greek  and  did  not  say  their  prayers 
in  it.  We  may  take  it  then,  that  at  least  since  the  3rd  century 
the  liturgy  in  Egypt  was  translated  into  Coptic  for  the  use  of  the 

1  As  the  simplest  Catholic  knows  what  "  Dominus  vobiscum,"  "  Sursum 
corda,"  etc.,  mean. 

2  Matt.  xix.  21. 

3  St.  Athanasius  :   Life  of  St.  Antony,  2  (P.G.  xxvi.  841). 

4  Palladius  :  Paradise  of  the  Fathers,  chap.  33  (ed.  E.  A.  Wallis  Budge, 
London,  1907,  pp.  145-146). 


276        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

natives.  Meanwhile  the  Hellenized  Alexandrines  prayed  in  their 
language — Greek.  Both  tongues  went  on  side  by  side,  and  nobody 
seems  to  have  thought  the  language  of  prayers  of  any  importance, 
till  the  Monophysite  schism  in  the  5th  century.  Then,  when 
gradually  two  communities  had  been  formed,  there  came  a 
natural  parting  of  the  ways.  The  Monophysites  were  from  the 
beginning  the  national  party  ;  so  they  used  the  national  language, 
till  it  became  their  criterion.  The  Greek  Melkites  used  Greek. 
Down  to  the  12th  century  they  kept  the  old  Alexandrine  liturgy 
of  St.  Mark  in  Greek,  though  through  their  attachment  to 
Constantinople  they  gradually  introduced  into  it  Byzantine 
elements.1  Then  occurred  an  outrageous  example  of  Byzantine 
arrogance.  By  this  time  the  (Ecumenical  Patriarch  was  making 
himself  a  very  bad  imitation  of  the  Pope.  He  arrogated  jurisdic- 
tion over  the  other  Orthodox  Patriarchs,2  and  carried  his  aggres- 
sion so  far  that  he  made  them  abandon  their  own  enormously 
more  ancient  and  venerable  rites  for  his  modern  liturgy.  Mark  II 
was  Orthodox  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  from  about  1195  to  1200. 
He  came  from  Constantinople  3  and  was  used  to  the  Byzantine 
rite.  Instigated  by  Theodore  Balsamon,  a  Greek  who  was  after- 
wards made  Orthodox  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  he  abolished  the 
ancient  Egyptian  rite.  Since  his  time  the  Orthodox  in  Egypt 
use  the  foreign  and  comparatively  modern  liturgy  of  Constanti- 
nople.4 The  old  Greek  liturgy  of  St.  Mark  is  not  now  used  by 
anyone. 

Under  the  Arabs  their  language  spread  throughout  Egypt,  and 
Coptic  gradually  died  out.  Already  in  the  9th  century  Severus 
of  Al-Ushmunain  says  that  he  writes  his  history  of  the  Patriarchs 

1  For  instance,  the  np oaKo^xibi],  a  Great  Entrance,  and  so  on. 

2  His  see  is  the  most  modern  of  all  Patriarchates,  and  is  not  apostolic. 
From  every  point  of  view  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  should  be  the 
least  of  the  Patriarchs.  His  one  title  to  honour  is  the  shamelessly  Erastian 
principle  that  the  Emperor  once  reigned  in  his  city.  The  same  basis  would 
make  Berlin  a  Patriarchate. 

3  Another  abuse.  Constantinople  for  centuries  foisted  its  clerks  on  the 
old  thrones  of  Antioch  and  Alexandria.  Generally  these  Greek  Patriarchs 
stayed  at  Constantinople,  not  even  troubling  to  visit  their  sees. 

4  All  the  Orthodox  now  use  the  Byzantine  rite,  as  a  witness  of  their  long 
servitude  under  the  upstart  Byzantine  Patriarch.  Note  that  on  the  other 
hand  the  Pope  has  never  tried  to  force  his  Roman  rite  on  Catholics  of  other 
Patriarchates. 


THE   COPTS  IN   OUR    TIME  277 

in  Arabic  because  few  Egyptians  know  Greek  or  Coptic.1  The 
language  is  now  quite  dead,  though  one  hears  doubtfully  authentic 
stories  of  remote  places  where  Coptic  is  said  to  have  survived  till 
the  19th  century.2  Even  the  priests  who  say  the  prayers  in 
Coptic  often  do  not  understand  a  word  of  the  language.  Most 
Coptic  service  books  have  a  parallel  Arabic  version.  The  lessons 
in  the  liturgy  are  read  first  in  Coptic,  then  in  Arabic  ;  so 
their  service  includes  three  languages.  The  survival  of  the  old 
Egyptian  tongue  in  the  liturgy  is  an  astonishing  phenomenon. 
Mr.  Butler  says  well :  "  The  romance  of  language  could  go  no 
further  than  to  join  the  speech  of  Pharaoh  and  the  writing  of 
Homer  in  the  service-book  of  an  Egyptian  Christian."  3 

The  Coptic  service-books  are  not  clearly  defined.  The  rite  for 
each  service  is  fixed  ;  but  various  services  may  be  given  in 
different  arrangements  in  various  books.  This  want  of  recognized 
compilations  (such  as  our  missal,  breviary,  ritual)  is  common  to 
most  Eastern  Churches.  However,  the  usual  books  are  :  The 
Euchologion,4  containing  the  celebrant's  parts  for  the  liturgies 
and  for  other  sacraments  and  blessings  ;  the  Diakonikon  5  for 
the  deacon  ;  and  the  Kutmarus,6  containing  lessons  for  all 
services.  There  is  sometimes  a  special  Gospel-book.  The 
Synaxarion  7  gives  the  lessons  from  lives  of  saints  read  in  the 
morning  service,  and  on  some  occasions  in  the  liturgy  (p.  283). 
The  hymns  and  chants  are  contained  in  many  collections,  those 
to  our  Lady  in  the  Theotokia,8  others  in  the  Difnari 9  and  the 
Doxology.  The  Psalter,  of  course,  contains  the  psalms.  Then 
there  is  a  multitude  of  excerpts  and  rearrangements.  A  church 
will  possess,  for  instance,  separate  books  giving  the  prayers  and 
rites  for  ordinations,  funerals,  confession,  baptism,  consecration 

1  History  of  the  Patriarchs,  ed.  Evetts,  p.  17. 

2  In  the  Zeitschrift  fur  agyptische  Sprache  u.  Altertumskunde  for  1901 
J.  E.  Quibell  wrote  an  article  ("  Wann  starb  das  Koptische  aus  ?  "  p.  87), 
maintaining  that  there  were  villages  in  which  Coptic  was  still  spoken  at  the 
end  of  the  19th  century. 

3  Ancient  Coptic  Churches,  ii.  247. 

4  Ar.  :    hulagi ;   Copt.  :    euchologion. 

5  Ar.  :    Kitab  ash-shamamisah. 

6  Kara  ixepus. 

7  Ar.  :    sinaksar  ;   Copt.  :    synaxar.  8  See  p.  278. 

9  g.VTi<puvapiov.  ■  '  •'■ 


278        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

of  churches  or  altars  or  fonts.1  The  Coptic  Patriarch  in  1868 
gave  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury  a  book  containing  the  rite  for  con- 
secrating an  altar  and  Epiphany  tank.2  The  service-books 
of  the  Monophysites  are  now  being  arranged  and  edited  in 
splendid  form  by  Mr.  Gladios  Lablb,3  a  wealthy  Copt  who  is 
doing  much  for  the  good  of  his  Church. 


5.  Coptic  Services 

The  Copts  have  a  divine  office  divided  into  these  hours  :  Mid- 
night (fXio-ovvKTiov,  matins) ;  Dawn  (6  a.m.  opOpos,  lauds— more 
or  less) ;  the  third  hour  (9  a.m.) ;  the  sixth  hour  (midday) ;  the  ninth 
hour  (3  p.m.)  ;  evening  service  (at  sunset,  ecnrcpLvov,  vespers)  ; 
night  service  (before  going  to  bed,  airoSenrvov,  compline).  These 
consist  of  psalms,  prose  hymns,  lessons,  prayers.4  Only  monks 
say  the  whole  office.  An  idea  of  its  arrangement  can  be  got  from 
Lord  Bute's  The  Coptic  Morning  Service  for  the  Lord's  Day.5 
They  have  a  special  long  office  of  our  Lady  called  Theotokia.6 
There  is  a  special  one  for  each  day  in  the  week.  It  consists  of 
four  parts :  1,  Psali,  an  invitation  addressed  to  the  people, 
calling  on  them  to  sing  the  praises  of  the  Mother  of  God ;  2,  the 
Theotokia  proper  (Arabic,  tadakiyah),  a  long  hymn  to  her  arranged 
in  chapters;  3,  Lobsh  (roof),  an  explanation  of  what  has  been 
sung,  completing  it,  as  a  roof  completes  a  house — this  always 
ends  with  a  prayer;  4,  Tarh  (cry,  interpretation),  an  explana- 
tion and  compendium  of  all  in  Arabic.  This  is  not  said,  but  may 
be  studied  by  people  who  know  no  Coptic  while  the  service  is 
going  on.     They  now  sing  the  Theotokia  only  during  the  month 

1  See,  for  instance,  the  list  of  books  in  a  church  near  Luksor  in  Butler  : 
op.  cit.  ii.  258-259. 

2  Edited  and  translated  by  G.  Horner  (London,  1902).  The  Uniate 
Copts  have  more  systematic  arrangements,  modelled  on  our  missal,  breviary, 
etc.  See  a  list  of  the  books  of  both  Uniates  and  Monophysites  in  Mallon  : 
Grammaire  Copte,  pp.  265-267. 

3  Labib's  Kutmarus  is  published  in  four  quarto  volumes  at  Cairo,  1900- 
1902  ;   his  Euchologion,  ib.  1904  (8vo)  ;   Funeral  rite,  ib.  1905. 

4  Cf.  Vansleb  :   Hist,  de  l'£gl.  d'Alex.  pp.  65-71. 

5  Translated  into  English,  London,  1908. 

6  Plur.  of  OeoToniov,  but  used  in  Coptic  as  a  singular. 


THE  COPTS  IN   OUR   TIME  279 

of  Hoiak  (December) .     Often  they  sing  those  for  the  whole  week 
on.  Saturday  evening,  and  stay  all  night  in  church.1 

Coptic  boys  are  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day  after  birth,  but 
no  religious  idea  is  attached  to  this.  Circumcision  after  baptism  is 
now  strictly  forbidden.2  Boys  are  baptized  forty  days,  girls  eighty 
days  after  birth.  It  is  a  long  ceremony.  They  are  immersed 
thrice,  and  confirmed  immediately  with  chrism  by  the  priest. 
A  liturgy  should  follow,  during  which  the  child  receives  Holy 
Communion.  If  it  is  too  young  to  receive  both  kinds,  the  priest 
dips  his  ringer  in  the  consecrated  wine  and  moistens  its  lips.3 
Confession  is  taught  plainly  in  theory.  In  practice  it  has  become 
rare  ;  though  a  pious  Copt  always  goes  to  confession  before 
marriage  and  (if  he  can)  when  dying.4  Marriage  should  take 
place  immediately  before  a  liturgy,  at  which  husband  and  wife 
communicate.  Both  are  anointed  and  crowned.5  There  are 
special  ordination  forms  for  the  Patriarch,  bishops,  kummus 
(p.  257),  priests,  archdeacons,  deacons,  sub-deacons,  readers,  and 
a  blessing  for  making  a  monk.  Copts  appear  to  consider  these 
all  on  the  same  level,  having  no  clear  idea  of  a  special  (sacramental) 
character  in  the  case  of  bishop,  priest,  and  deacon.  We  have 
mentioned  the  election  of  the  Patriarch  (p.  254).  His  ordina- 
tion involves  long  ceremonies.  It  should  take  place  at  the  Church 
of  St.  Mark  at  Alexandria,  during  the  holy  liturgy.  The  senior 
bishop  presides,  and  lays  his  right  hand  on  the  head  of  the  elect  in 
silence  ;  then  he  and  all  other  bishops  lay  on  both  hands  and  say 
the  ordination  prayer.  The  Patriarch  is  proclaimed,  and  every- 
one cries  a£io?.  The  Gospel-book  is  laid  on  his  head,  he  is  vested 
in  his  robes,  all  other  bishops  take  off  their  crowns.  He  continues 
the  liturgy  himself.6    All  other  bishops  are  ordained  by  the 

1  See  A.  Mallon,  S.  J. :  "  Les  Theotokies  "  in  the  Rev.  de  I'Orient  chret.  1904, 
pp.  17-31.  De  Lacy  O'Leary  :  The  Daily  Office  and  Theotokia  of  the  Coptic 
Church  (Simpkin,  Marshall,  191 1),  translates  all,  and  gives  an  excellent  idea 
of  the  arrangement  of  the  Coptic  Divine  office. 

2  The  idea  being  that  this  would  be  a  return  to  the  Old  Law  after  Chris- 
tianity.    There  have  been  heated  controversies  on  this  point  (see  p.  242). 

3  A.  Evetts  :  The  Rites  of  the  Coptic  Church  (D.  Nutt,  1888)  ;  translation 
of  the  baptism  and  marriage  services.  Butler  :  Ancient  Coptic  Churches, 
ii.  262-274.  4  lb.  ii.  298-300.  5  lb.  ii.  323-326 ;  Evetts :  op.  cit. 

6  Renaudot :  Ritus  ordinationis  Alex,  iacobitarum  patr .  (Lit.  Orient.  Coll. 
i.  441-468)  ;  Vansleb  :  op.  cit.  pp.  162-169  ;  Butler  :  op.  cit.  ii.  302-312. 


280        THE  LESSER   EASTERN  CHURCHES 

Patriarch,1  who  lays  his  hands  on  their  head.  The  assisting 
bishops  lay  theirs  on  the  shoulders  of  the  elect.  The  Patriarch 
breathes  on  him  saying :  "  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost ;  whose  sins, 
etc."  The  ordained  is  vested.2  Priests  are  ordained  by  the 
imposition  of  the  bishop's  hands,  and  are  then  vested  by  him. 
A  priest  who  becomes  a  kummus  is  made  one  by  much  the  same 
rite,  exactly  like  ordination.3  The  archdeacon  and  deacon  are 
ordained  by  laying  on  hands,  not  the  sub-deacon  and  reader.  The 
deacon  receives  the  Eucharistic  spoon  as  the  symbol  of  his  office,4 
the  sub-deacon  a  lighted  candle.5 

The  anointing  of  the  sick  has  curious  features.  It  should  be 
done,  if  possible,  by  seven  priests.  The  matter  is  oil  from  a  holy 
lamp.6  To  procure  this,  little  lamps  with  places  for  seven  wicks 
are  specially  made.7  One  of  these  is  placed  before  a  picture  of  a 
saint ;  prayers  are  said,  each  priest  lights  a  wick  in  turn.  While 
it  burns,  there  are  more  prayers  and  a  gospel  is  read.  Then  the 
sick  man  is  anointed  with  the  oil.  This  service  can  only  take 
place  in  church  ;  if  the  man  is  too  sick  to  come  himself  he  sends 
a  friend  as  a  substitute,  who  receives  the  sacrament  in  his  name.8 

1  Remember  that  in  the  East  the  man  who  ordains  you  acquires  thereby 
jurisdiction  over  you. 

2  Silbernagl  :   op.  cit.  p.  287  ;    Butler  :   op.  cit.  ii.  312-318. 

3  Except  (a  theologian  would  say)  that  the  different  prayers  make  all  the 
difference.  The  ordination  prayer  is  (in  our  language)  the  "  form  "  which 
determines  the  meaning  of  the  imposition  of  hands  (for  a  father  may  lay 
his  hand  on  his  son's  head,  asking  God  to  bless  him).  Now  a  prayer  that 
a  deacon  may  be  made  a  priest  is  a  "  form  "  of  the  Sacrament  of  Holy 
Orders.  A  prayer  that  a  priest  may  become  a  kummus  is  not,  since  the 
kummus  is  no  part  of  the  hierarchy  founded  by  Christ.  So  the  Coptic 
bishop  when  he  makes  a  priest  administers  a  sacrament ;  when  he  makes 
a  kummus  he  only  gives  a  sacramental.  And  this  may  be  true,  even  if  he 
himself  has  no  clear  idea  of  the  difference. 

4  Not  a  Gospel-book.  The  connection  between  deacon  and  gospel  has 
never  been  quite  so  clear  in  the  East  as  it  became  in  the  West.  At  bottom 
all  lessons  could  be  (and  once  were)  read  by  a  lector  (Fortescue  :  The  Mass, 
280-281). 

5  For  all  these  orders  see  Vansleb  :  op.  cit.  162-190  ;  Butler  :  op.  cit.  ii. 
3 1 8-322 .    There  is  no  evidence  of  chrism  being  used  at  any  Coptic  ordination . 

6  Anointing  with  oil  from  a  lamp  which  has  burned  before  a  holy  picture, 
or  in  church,  is  an  old  form  of  blessing  in  the  East.  See,  for  instance, 
Ignatius  :    Vita  Tarasii,  ed.  Heikel  (Helsingfors,  1891),  pp.  421,  436. 

7  See  the  picture  of  one  in  Butler  :   op.  cit.  ii.  76. 

8  Butler  :   ii.  326-329. 


THE   COPTS  IN   OUR   TIME  281 

The  most  important  and  the  most  interesting  rite  of  the  Coptic 
Church  is  naturally  the  Eucharistic  Liturgy.1  We  have  seen  that 
the  parent-rite  of  Egypt  is  the  now  disused  Greek  St.  Mark.  The 
Coptic  liturgies  began  as  translation  of  this.  They  have  three 
alternative  forms.  The  pro-anaphoral  part  (to  "  Sursum  cor  da," 
which  begins  the  anaphora)  is  common  to  all  three.  This  is 
merely  a  Coptic  version  of  the  St.  Mark  rite,  with  certain  variants.2 
Its  normal  anaphora  is  headed :  "  of  the  most  blessed  Mark  or  of 
the  holy  Cyril," 3  that  is  Cyril  of  Alexandria.  It  is  generally 
referred  to  as  St.  Cyril ;  but  the  anaphora,  too,  is  only  the  Coptic 
form  of  the  St.  Mark  rite.4  Then  they  have  two  other  foreign 
anaphoras,  one  ascribed  to  St.  Gregory  (Nazianzene) ,  which  has 
the  almost  unique  peculiarity  of  being  addressed  to  Christ  through- 
out ; 5  the  other  (of  St.  Basil)  is  a  shortened  and  adapted  form  of  the 
Byzantine  Basil  Liturgy.6  Both  of  these  are  also  from  the  Greek ; 
both  were  once  used  in  Greek  by  the  Orthodox.  It  is  then  clear 
that,  historically,  the  anaphora  of  Cyril  or  Mark  is  the  most 
important.  This  is  the  old  Alexandrine  anaphora  in  its  Coptic 
form ;  but  it  is  now  rarely  used.  The  ordinary  Coptic  liturgy 
consists  of  the  invariable  pro-anaphora  (of  St.  Mark)  with  the 
anaphora  of  St.  Basil.  Their  Euchologion  prints  this  first.  Then 
follow  the  two  alternative  anaphoras :  St.  Gregory,  used  three 
times  a  year  (at  midnight  on  Christmas,  Epiphany,  Easter),  and 
St.  Cyril,  used  in  theory  during  Advent  (the  little  fast)  and  Lent 
(the  great  fast).7  Mr.  Brightman,  rightly  from  the  student's 
point  of  view,  gives  this  Cyril  anaphora.  But  as  here  we  intend 
to  describe  usual  modern  Coptic  practice,  we  will  suppose  the 
Basil  anaphora. 

1  Ar.  :   kurban  ;   Copt.  :   prosfora. 

2  In  some  ways  it  represents  the  old  Alexandrine  rite  better  than  the 
Greek  form,  which  has  been  considerably  Byzantinized  (p.  276). 

3  Brightman  :   Eastern  Liturgies,  p.  164. 

4  Brightman  :  Eastern  Liturgies,  144-188  ;  Renaudot :  Liturg.  Orient. 
Coll.  i.  38-51. 

5  One  Maronite  anaphora  also  has  this  feature.  For  the  text  of  Coptic 
St.  Gregory  see  Renaudot  :   Liturg.  Orient.  Coll.  i  25-37. 

6  lb.  1-25  (joined  to  the  common  pro-anaphora). 

7  It  seems  that  in  practice  the  Cyril  anaphora  is  now  only  used  once  a 
year,  on  the  Friday  before  Palm  Sunday  (Lord  Bute  :  Coptic  Morning 
Service,  p.  ii), 


282        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

The  holy  liturgy  should  be  celebrated  every  Sunday,  greater 
feast-day,  and  on  special  occasions  such  as  weddings,  ordinations, 
and  so  on.  Only  one  liturgy  may  be  celebrated  on  any  altar  on 
one  day  ;  nor  may  the  holy  vessels  and  instruments  be  used  more 
than  once  a  day.  The  bread  is  leavened,  made  the  same  morning 
in  flat  round  cakes  about  an  inch  thick  and  three  inches  in  diameter. 
It  is  stamped  with  nine  crosses,  and  around  them  the  Trisagion  (in 
Greek).1  Three  are  baked  ;  the  celebrant  chooses  one  for  conse- 
cration, the  others  become  the  antidoron  (p.  285).  There  is  some 
uncertainty  about  the  wine.  During  the  worst  periods  of  Moslem 
persecution  it  was  forbidden  under  severe  penalties  to  ferment 
any  wine  at  all  in  Egypt.  It  seems  that  from  that  time  the  use 
of  unfermented  grape-juice  for  the  liturgy  began.  Butler  says 
roundly  :  "  The  Eucharistic  wine  is  unfermented."  2  This  is  a 
mistake.  At  any  rate,  now  they  make  a  liquid  of  dried  raisins 
and  leave  it  to  ferment.  Fermented  raisin-juice  is  wine,  and  would 
satisfy  our  condition  of  validity.3 

The  holy  liturgy  is  celebrated  in  the  morning,  generally  at 
about  seven  o'clock.  It  should  follow  the  office  of  the  third 
hour.  The  celebrant,  and  all  who  receive  Communion,  must  be 
fasting  since  midnight.  On  the  altar  stand  all  the  vessels  re- 
quired ;  the  chalice  is  put  in  the  ark  (p.  271),  where  it  stands 
till  the  Communion  ;  the  two  candles  are  lighted ;  the  haikal 
doors  are  open  and  the  curtain  is  drawn  back  during  the 
whole  liturgy.  While  the  choir  finishes  the  office,4  the  celebrant 
and  deacon  see  that  all  is  ready  and  say  preparatory  prayers. 
The  celebrant  chooses  the  loaf  to  be  consecrated  (called  the 
"  Lamb ")    and  washes  his    hands.      The    deacon    bears    the 

1  See  the  illustration  in  Butler  :  op.  cit.  ii.  278,  who  points  out  that  Neale's 
picture  (Holy  Eastern  Church,  vol.  v.  214,  copied  from  Denzinger  :  Ritus 
Orient,  i.  81)  is  incorrect.  2  Op.  cit.  ii.  281. 

3  I  believe  that  in  Upper  Egypt  they  sometimes  use  fermented  date- juice, 
which  we,  of  course,  should  deny  to  be  valid  matter. 

4  In  small  churches  there  is  no  choir  ;  the  people  sing  the  responses. 
In  practice  the  celebrant,  deacon,  and  one  or  two  more  learned  laymen  get 
through  the  office  at  a  tremendous  pace,  then  begin  the  preparation  of  the 
liturgy.  There  is  often  no  deacon.  So  the  celebrant  takes  his  part  too, 
and  manages  as  best  he  can  with  help  from  people  standing  round.  They 
are  all  very  careless,  and  often  ignorant  what  to  do  next.  They  stop  and 
argue  about  it  at  the  top  of  their  voices  in  excited  Arabic.  I  have  seen  men 
finishing  their  cigarettes  in  church  after  the  liturgy  has  begun. 


THE   COPTS  IN   OUR   TIME  283 

wine  in  a  cruet ;  they  veil  the  offerings  and  process  with 
them  round  the  altar,  while  the  choir  sing  an  anthem.  A 
little  water  is  mixed  with  the  wine,  the  offerings  are  placed  on 
the  altar  and  blessed.  All  this  corresponds  to  the  Byzantine 
Great  Entrance,  but  takes  place  before  the  Liturgy  of  the  Cate- 
chumens. Then  follows  the  Enarxis,  offertory  prayers  and  a 
prayer  for  forgiveness  of  sins.1  Here  begins  the  Liturgy  of  the 
Catechumens.  The  celebrant  incenses  the  offerings,  the  altar, 
the  church  and  the  people.  The  deacon  says  a  short  litany, 
praying  for  the  whole  Church,  the  Patriarch  and  the  people. 
The  lessons  follow.  There  should  be  four  :  one  from  St.  Paul,  one 
from  the  Catholic  Epistle,  one  from  Acts  (or  a  saint's  life  from 
the  Synaxar),  and  a  Gospel.  But  the  second  is  often  left  out. 
The  deacon  should  read  all.  When  there  is  no  deacon  the  cele- 
brant reads  them.  But  sometimes  he  cannot  read  (he  knows  the 
Coptic  prayers  by  heart,  often  not  understanding  them,  unless  he 
has  studied  the  parallel  Arabic  version  in  his  book)  ;  in  this  case, 
any  educated  layman  reads.  Often  no  one  knows  what  should 
be  read,  so  they  squabble  over  it  in  vociferous  Arabic.  A  prayer 
is  said  after  the  first  two  lessons  ;  before  the  Gospel  the  Trisagion 
is  sung.2  Each  lesson  is  followed  at  once  by  a  short  verse  sung 
(■n-poKeifxevov,  gradual),  and  is  then  read  in  Arabic.  During 
the  lessons  the  thurible  is  swung  all  the  time.  While  the  Trisa- 
gion is  sung  a  procession  is  formed  with  the  sealed  Gospel-book  3 
(Little  Entrance)  ;  while  the  deacon  reads  everyone  takes  off  his 
tarbush  (which  all  Easterns  wear  in  church),  and  the  celebrant 
waves  the  thurible  towards  the  book  continuously.  A  prayer 
follows,  then  sometimes  a  sermon  or  the  proclamation  of  notices. 
The  catechumens  are  no  longer  dismissed  by  a  formula.4  Here 
follows  the  Liturgy  of  the  Faithful.  There  is  a  "  Prayer  of  the 
Veil,"5  the  deacon  sings  a  litany,  the  Nicene  Creed(in  a  plural  form: 

1  Brightman  :   Eastern  Liturgies,  144-149. 

2  In  Greek,  with  the  famous  alleged  Monophysite  clause  :  "  who  wast 
crucified  for  us  "  (p.  190).  Throughout  the  liturgy  many  portions  are  in 
Greek  (p.  274). 

3  P.  271.  The  procession  goes  with  lights  to  the  lectern  outside  the 
haikal  (all  lessons  are  read  here).| 

4  Brightman  :   op.  cit.  150-158. 

5  While  the  bread  and  wine'are  unveiled. 


284   THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

"  We  believe  ")  is  said  by  all,  and  the  kiss  of  peace  is  given.1  So 
we  come  to  the  anaphora  (of  Basil).2  The  deacon  cries  out : 
"  Come,  stand  with  fear,  look  towards  the  East.  Let  us  attend." 
Celebrant :  "  Mercy,  peace  and  a  sacrifice  of  praise.  The  Lord  be 
with  you."  R.  :  "  And  with  thy  spirit."  Celebrant :  "  Lift  up 
your  hearts."  R.  :  "  We  have  (them)  to  the  Lord."  Celebrant : 
"  Let  us  give  thanks  to  God."  R. :  "  Right  and  just."  Celebrant : 
"  Right  and  just,  etc."  The  people  sing  the  Sanctus,  and  the  cele- 
brant takes  up  the  idea  in  a  prayer  like  the  Gallican  "  Vere  sanctus." 
The  words  of  Institution  soon  follow,  the  people  interspersing  them 
with  Amens.  Incense  is  swung  meanwhile,  lighted  tapers  are  held 
around  the  altar,  and  everyone  uncovers  his  head.  At  the  words 
of  Institution  the  bread  is  broken  into  three  parts.  After  them, 
after  our  Lord's  command  to  do  as  he  had  done,3  the  people 
answer  :  "  We  announce  thy  death,  O  Lord,  and  we  confess  thy 
resurrection."  Then  comes  the  Epiklesis  :  "  We  sinners,  thy 
unworthy  servants,  pray  thee,  Christ  our  God,  and  we  adore  thee 
by  the  favour  of  thy  goodness,  that  thy  Holy  Spirit  come  upon 
us  and  upon  these  offered  gifts,  that  he  may  hallow  them  and 
make  them  thy  holy  of  holies."4  R.:"  Amen."  Priest :"  And  that 
he  should  make  this  bread  (he  shall  sign  it  thrice  with  the  cross) 
the  holy  body  (he  shall  bow  his  head  and  point  to  the  body  with 
his  hand)  of  the  same  Lord  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ, 
which  is  given  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  eternal  life  to  him 
who  receives  it."  R. :  "  Amen."  The  corresponding  form  (with  the 
same  rubrics)  follows  for  the  chalice.5  Then  comes  the  Intercession, 
a  litany  said  by  the  deacon  with  a  prayer  by  the  celebrant  after 
each  clause.6    There  is  a  long  list  of  saints,  including  many 

1  lb.  158-163.    The  "  kiss  "  takes  the  form  of  touching  each  other's  hands. 

2  Here  we  part  company  with  Brightman,  who  gives  the  Cyril  anaphora . 

3  Quoted  in  an  expanded  form  ;    Renaudot,  i.  15. 

4  The  rubric  directs  :  "  Meanwhile  the  priest  shall  have  his  hands 
stretched  out  and  lifted  up,  praying  for  the  descent  (of  the  Holy  Ghost)." 
Notice  the  comparatively  rare  feature  that  the  Invocation-prayer  is  addressed 
to  Christ. 

5  Renaudot,  i.  15-16.  This  Epiklesis  (of  the  Coptic  Basil  liturgy)  is 
clearly  modelled  on  that  of  the  Byzantine  Basil ;   Brightman  :   op.  cit.  330. 

6  So  this  originally  foreign  anaphora  does  not  show  the  typical  note  of 
the  Egyptian  rite,  namely,  the  Intercession  before  the  Consecration,  as  in 
Coptic  St.  Mark  (Brightman,  165-175).  See  Fortescue  :  The  Mass  (Long- 
mans, 1912),  p.  96. 


THE   COPTS  IN  OUR   TIME  285 

Egyptian  martyrs  (under  the  Romans)  and  fathers  of  the  desert  ; 
then  the  diptychs  of  the  dead.  The  fraction  and  intinction  follow. 
The  consecrated  bread  is  broken  into  five  portions,  which  are 
arranged  on  the  paten  in  the  form  of  a  cross.  Of  these  the  central 
portion,  a  large  square,  is  called  the  Isbodikon,1  and  is  reserved 
for  the  communion  of  the  celebrant  and  clergy.  Intinction  is 
made  by  the  celebrant  dipping  his  finger  in  the  consecrated  wine 
and  marking  a  cross  with  it  on  the  holy  bread.  The  Lord's  Prayer 
is  chanted  by  all,  the  celebrant  alone  saying  its  introduction  and 
embolism.  A  further  memory  of  the  living  and  dead  follows  ; 
then  he  elevates  the  Isbodikon,  holding  it  aloft  as  he  comes  to  the 
door  of  the  haikal,  and  says  :  "  Holy  things  for  the  holy."  The 
people  cry  :  "  Blessed  is  he  who  comes  in  the  name  of  the  Lord." 
After  this  he  puts  the  Isbodikon  into  the  chalice.  Here  he  says 
the  prayer  "  I  confess  "  already  quoted  (p.  263).  In  its  latter  part 
(not  quoted  above)  there  is  a  Monophysite  clause.2  He  receives 
Communion,  gives  it  to  the  clergy  and  people.  The  laity  receive 
both  kinds  together  (intincted)  with  a  spoon.  Men  come  into  the 
haikal ;  the  celebrant  goes  down  to  the  women  at  the  haikal  doors. 
The  clergy  consume  what  is  left  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  and 
one  or  two  prayers  of  thanksgiving  are  said.  None  of  the  three 
Coptic  liturgies  give  a  formula  of  dismissal,  such  as  is  usually  said 
by  the  deacon.  If  a  bishop  be  present,  he  washes  his  hands  in 
water  which  he  then  sprinkles  over  the  people.3  Lastly,  the 
unconsecrated  loaves  are  distributed  as  blessed  bread.4  The 
liturgy  lasts  from  an  hour  and  a  half  to  two  hours.  The  people 
do  not  kneel ; 5  they  stand  to  pray  and,  as  a  special  sign  of 
reverence,  prostrate  themselves. 

Coptic  Church  music  has  systems  of  its  own  which  have  hardly 

1  A  Coptic  corruption  of  8t<nroTiKbv  {au/xa). 

2  Renaudot  :    op.  cit.  i.  23. 

3  This  rudimentary  form  of  holy  water  is  common  among  the 
Copts. 

4  The  avriSupov  or  tv\6yicu,  common  to  all  Eastern  rites,  as  once  in 
the  West  and  still  in  France.  Descriptions  of  the  liturgy,  not  in  every 
detail  agreeing  with  this,  may  be  read  in  Butler  :  op.  cit.  ii.  275-297  ;  Beth  : 
op.  cit.  408-413.  All  Eastern  rites,  especially  those  of  the  smaller  and 
more  backward  Churches,  are  liable  to  a  certain  amount  of  variation. 
Neither  the  books  nor  local  practice  are  quite  uniform. 

5  Copts  never  kneel,  except  (I  think)  during  Lent. 


286        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

yet  been  studied.  The  notes  are  not  written  down x  but  are  handed 
on  by  experts,  generally  blind  singers.  This  leads  to  considerable 
variation  in  form.  Grace-notes  and  ornamental  modifications  are 
added  ad  libitum.  Where  there  is  no  choir  the  people  sing  ;  they 
appear  familiar  with  the  general  form  of  the  tune,  but  everyone 
adds  little  ornaments  of  his  own,  and  they  do  not  at  all  mind  not 
keeping  together.  Their  tunes  are  obviously  enharmonic,  and 
abound  in  the  augmented  second.2  I  regret  to  say  that  the  in- 
fluence of  British  brass  bands  and  French  gramophones  begins 
to  effect  a  certain  tendency  towards  diatonic,  or  at  least  chromatic 
notes,  and  an  appalling  inclination  to  sharpen  the  last  note  but 
one.  It  would  be  well  to  obtain  some  record  of  their  traditional 
melodies  before  they  have  preverted  all  into  our  minor  scale  with  a 
sharpened  leading  note.3  But  so  far  this  tendency  seems  to  obtain 
only  in  Cairo  and  Alexandria.  In  the  villages  you  may  still  hear 
the  real  thing.  They  have,  of  course,  no  organs  ;  but  they 
accompany  their  singing  by  ringing  bells  and  clashing  cymbals, 
with  the  strangest  effect. 

People  rarely  go  to  Communion,  generally  once  a  year,  at 
Easter  or  thereabouts  (practically  during  Lent).  The  Copts 
certainly  once  reserved  the  Holy  Eucharist  for  the  sick.4  Now 
they  no  longer  do  so,  and  have  no  kind  of  tabernacle  or  vessel 
for  reservation. 

The  Ecclesiastical  Calendar  has  a  peculiar  reckoning,  the  "  Era 
of  the  Martyrs."  5  This  means  from  the  martyrs  of  Diocletian's 
reign.  It  begins  on  the  29  of  Mesori  (August),6  284,  of  our  cal- 
culation. Otherwise  they  follow  the  Julian  Calendar.  This  year 
then  (1913)  is  1629  of  the  Martyrs.     In  civil  life  they  date  by 

1  Father  Badet,  S.J.,  has  collected  some  in  Les  Chants  liturgiques  des 
Coptes,  2  parts,  lithographed,  Cairo,  1899. 

2  Cf.  Vansleb  :   Hist,  de  1'E.glise  d'Alex.  pp.  56-58. 

3  Badet,  on  the  contrary,  thinks  that  the  older  Coptic  tunes  are  really 
diatonic  (in  seven  tones,  on  re,  la,  mi,  si,  fa,  do,  sol),  and  that  enharmonic 
intervals  come  from  Arab  influence  (op.  cit.  pp.  v,  24).  I  am  sure  this  is 
not  possible.     The  diatonic  scale  is  a  purely  Western  invention. 

4  See  Renaudot  :  Hist.  Patr.  Alex.  429-430,  for  evidences  of  this  and 
for  an  account  of  its  discontinuation. 

5  Ar.  :    Sanat  ash-Shahada. 

6  The  names  of  the  months  in  Bohairic,  Sa'idic  and  Arabic  will  be  found 
in  Mallon  :  Grammaire  Copte,  p.  81.  For  the  Mr  a  Martyrum  see  Nilles 
in  the  Innsbrucker  Zeitschrift  f.  Kath.  Theol.  1897,  pp.  579  and  732. 


THE  COPTS  IN  OUR   TIME  287 

the  Higrah,  or  by  our  Calendar.  The  ecclesiastical  year  begins  on 
Tut  (September)  1.  Feasts  are  divided  into  three  classes.  Seven 
greater  feasts  of  our  Lord,1  seven  lesser  feasts  of  our  Lord,2  and 
saints'  days.  There  are  many  of  these.  They  keep  the  birth 
(September  10)  and  falling  asleep  (August  16)  of  the  holy  Theo- 
t6kos,  the  apostles,  "  St.  Antony  the  Great,  star  of  the  desert  " 
(February  22),  "  St.  Athanasius  the  Apostolic,  Patriarch  of 
Alexandria  "  (May  7),  "  St.  Michael  Archangel,  and  prayer  for  the 
rising  of  the  Nile  "  (June  12),  the  "  Four  incorporeal  animals  "  (in 
Ezechiel,  November  8),  the  "  twenty-four  elders  sitting  around  the 
throne  of  God  "  (November  24).  They  also  keep  feasts  of  many 
Monophysite  leaders — Severus,  Dioscor,  and  a  number  of  Alexan- 
drine Patriarchs  who  have  little  title  to  canonization  other  than 
their  opposition  to  Chalcedon.  They  have  four  chief  fasts  :  The 
great  fast  (Lent),  beginning  fifty- two  days  before  Easter,  the  fast  of 
the  Apostles  (about  forty  days  before  July  5,  St.  Peter  and  St. 
Paul),  the  fast  of  the  Mother  of  God  (fifteen  days  before  August  16), 
and  the  little  fast  (Advent),  from  December  1  till  Christmas.  The 
fast  of  Nineveh  (in  memory  of  Jonas)  lasts  three  days,  about  a 
fortnight  before  Lent.  The  fast  of  Heraclius  3  now  coincides  with 
the  first  week  in  Lent.  Their  fasting  is  a  very  serious  matter. 
Like  Ramadan  it  involves  complete  abstinence  from  any  food 
between  sunrise  and  sunset,  and  when  they  do  eat,  abstinence 
from  many  things  besides  flesh-meat.4 

Throughout  the  year  they  have  various  special  rites  which 
occur  on  special  days.  On  the  feast  of  our  Lord's  Baptism  (the 
Epiphany,  but  January  11)  they  bless  the  waters — the  Nile  or 

1  Annunciation,  Nativity  (December  29),  Baptism  (January  11),  Palms, 
Resurrection,  Ascension,  Pentecost. 

2  Circumcision  (January  6),  first  miracle  (January  13),  Presentation 
(February  8),  Last  Supper  (Maundy  Thursday),  Sunday  of  Thomas  (first 
after  Easter),  Entry  into  Egypt  (May  24),  Transfiguration  (August  13). 

3  According  to  their  legend,  because  the  Christians  in  Jerusalem  promised 
the  Emperor  Heraclius  (610-641)  that,  if  only  he  would  massacre  all  the 
Jews  in  the  city,  they  would  fast  for  one  week  every  year,  till  the  end  of 
the  world,  for  his  benefit.  Lured  by  this  bait  he  carried  out  their  pious 
wish  (Vansleb  :    op.  cit.  74—75). 

4  But  delicate  people  get  some  slight  dispensation.  An  idea  of  the  Coptic 
Calendar  may  be  had  from  Nilles  :  Kalendarium  manuale,  ii.  690-724  ; 
but  what  he  gives  is  the  Calendar  of  the  Uniates.  For  fast-days  cf. 
Vansleb  :   Hist,  de  I'lLglise  d' Alex.  pp.  71-77. 


288        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

the  sea  if  they  are  near  them,  otherwise  a  tank  in  the  narthex  of 
the  church  (p.  267)  .*  Holy  Week  begins  with  "  Osanna  Sunday/' 
when  they  have  a  service  and  procession  of  palms  (which  do  not 
lack  in  Egypt).  On  Good  Friday  ("Great  Friday")  there  is  a 
symbolic  burial  of  a  crucifix,  like  the  Byzantine  Ta</>os  rite.2 

We  have  noted  that  the  chief  interests  in  the  Coptic  Church  are 
its  memories  and  its  archaeology.  Its  heresy  is  no  longer  of  acute 
importance  even  to  Copts  themselves.  It  is  maintained  by  a 
kind  of  inertia,  because  it  was  so  long  a  national  patriotic  cause. 
Nor  has  a  small  local  sect  in  one  country  any  great  practical 
importance  to-day.  But  the  memories  of  the  old  Church  of 
Egypt  give  it  a  dignity  not  shared  by  many  larger  and  more 
prosperous  Churches  in  the  West.  These  memories  cling  wonder- 
fully still  to  their  services,  customs,  buildings.  The  Orthodox 
Church  keeps  alive  the  palmy  days  of  the  Eastern  Empire,  from 
Justinian  to  1453.  But  the  ghosts  which  hover  around  Coptic 
altars  are  older  than  this.  Perhaps  nowhere  in  the  world  can 
you  imagine  yourself  back  in  so  remote  an  age  as  when  you  are 
in  a  Coptic  church.  You  go  into  a  strange  dark  building  ;  at 
first  the  European  needs  an  effort  to  realize  that  it  is  a  church 
at  all,  it  looks  so  different  from  our  usual  associations.  But  it 
is  enormously  older  than  the  clustered  columns,  moulded  arches 
and  glowing  clerestory,  than  the  regular  aisles  and  balanced 
chapels  to  which  we  are  accustomed.  In  a  Coptic  church  you 
come  into  low  dark  spaces,  a  labyrinth  of  irregular  openings. 
There  is  little  light  from  the  narrow  windows.  Dimly  you  see 
strange  rich  colours  and  tarnished  gold,  all  mellowed  by  dirt.3  In 
loops  from  the  vault  above  hang  ropes  bearing  the  white  ostrich 
eggs,  and  lamps  sparkle  in  the  gloom.  Before  you  is  the  exquisite 
carving,  inlay  in  delicate  patterns,  of  the  haikal  screen .  All  around 
you  see,  dusty  and  confused,  wonderful  pieces  of  wood  carving. 

1  The  rite  is  given  in  Lord  Bute  and  E.  A.  Wallis  Budge  :  The  Blessing 
of  the  Waters  (London  :  H.  Frowde,  1901),  pp.  102-137. 

2  The  services  for  Holy  Week  and  Easter  are  printed  in  a  special  book, 
called  Kitab  albaskah. 

3  The  beautiful  dirt  of  a  Coptic  church  is  one  of  its  most  picturesque 
features.  If  ever  English  and  American  missionaries  succeed  in  their  feli 
purpose  of  making  Copts  clean  their  churches,  they  will  destroy  their 
character,  and  will  make  them  gaudy  and  hideous,  like  the  Patriarchal 
church  at  Cairo.     But  I  do  not  think  there  is  much  danger. 


THE   COPTS  IN   OUR    TIME  289 

Behind  the  screen  looms  the  curve  of  the  apse;  on  the  thick 
columns  and  along  the  walls  under  the  low  cupolas  are  inscrip- 
tions in  exquisite  lettering — Coptic  and  Arabic.  The  impression 
is  a  confusion  of  dark  misty  colour,  out  of  which  gleam  patches  of 
crimson  and  blue  from  the  paintings— St.  George's  cloak  and  our 
Lady's  mantle.  If  you  assist  at  a  liturgy  you  see  the  clergy  moving 
in  and  out  of  the  haikal  door  in  their  shabby,  gaudy  vestments  ; 
the  incense  fills  the  dark  vault  with  clouds  of  blue  smoke,  and  the 
strange  wailing  goes  on  with  clashing  cymbals  and  jangling  bells. 
They  sing  chant  after  chant  in  the  ancient  tongue  which  they  do 
not  understand  themselves  ;  but  the  ghosts  of  their  fathers  know 
it,  Rameses  II  would  know  it,  and  the  heavenly  powers  whom 
they  address  know  it.  Then,  in  the  same  way  as  the  colours  of 
the  holy  icons  gleam  from  the  gloom  around,  so  out  of  the  Coptic 
come  familiar  fragments  of  Greek  ;  suddenly  you  realize  that 
what  they  are  singing  is  :  "  Agios  o  Theos,  agios  ischyros,  agios 
athanatos,  o  stavrotheis  di'  imas  (memory  of  Peter  the  Dyer  !) 
eleison  imas."  So  here  amid  the  dirt  and  the  incense  smoke, 
while  Coptic  and  Greek  roll  around  the  haikal  screen,  you  may 
dream  of  the  mighty  men  who  once  lived  here,  Pachomius  and 
Pambo,  Antony  star  of  the  desert,  and  Paul,  the  first  hermit, 
Athanasius  fleeing  from  the  sword  of  Constantius.  For  the  sake 
of  these  glorious  memories,  for  the  sake,  too,  of  the  long  line  of 
their  martyrs  under  Islam,  we  can  feel  nothing  but  respect,  wish 
nothing  but  good  to  the  people  of  Christ  in  Egypt.  They  have 
stood  for  his  name  so  faithfully  during  the  long,  dark  centuries 
now  past.  May  they  stand  for  it  always  in  happier  ages  to  come. 
May  they  confess  it  (honouring  the  all-holy  Lady  Theot6kos)  no 
longer,  please  God,  in  unhappy  isolation,  but  joined  again  to  the 
Church  which  acknowledges  him  throughout  all  the  world,  the 
evil  done  to  them  by  Dioscor  and  the  Cat  being  at  last  undone. 
So  may  God  again  say  :  "  Vidi  arnictionem  populi  mei  qui  est  in 
Aegypto  et  descendi  liberare  eos." 

Summary 

The  Copts  are  the  Monophysite  Church  of  Egypt.     There  are 
over  half  a  million  of  them,  under  their  Patriarch  and  about  fifteen 

19 


290        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

other  bishops.  They  have  the  usual  orders  of  the  hierarchy,  with 
a  special  rank  (kummus)  for  higher  priests,  many  monks,  and  a 
few  nuns.  The  standard  of  education  among  the  clergy  is  low, 
now  raised  in  some  respects,  with  doubtful  advantage,  by  Pro- 
testant missionaries.  They  cling  to  their  hereditary  heresy  and 
still  ahbor  Chalcedon  ;  otherwise  there  is  little  to  say  against 
their  faith.  Particularly  they  pray  to  saints,  for  the  dead,  and 
have  the  greatest  possible  devotion  to  our  Lady.  Their  churches 
and  services  are  the  most  interesting  feature  of  this  sect.  Their 
customs  are  in  many  ways  more  archaic  than  those  of  Byzantine 
Christians.  Their  services  are  in  Coptic  (otherwise  a  dead  lan- 
guage), with  many  formulas  in  Greek.  Their  rite  is  the  old  rite 
of  Alexandria,  attributed  to  St.  Mark  ;  though  on  most  days  they 
use,  not  the  original  anaphora,  but  a  later  one  modelled  on  the 
Greek  St.  Basil.  They  have  a  Calendar  of  their  own,  reckoned 
from  the  "  Era  of  the  Martyrs,"  which  is  our  year  284.  Like 
all  Eastern  Christians  they  fast  in  a  way  that  we  should  find 
impossible. 


PART  III 

THE    ABYSSINIANS,   JACOBITES,    AND 
MALABAR    CHRISTIANS 


These  three,  smallest  and  least  important  of  the  lesser  Eastern 
Churches,  may  be  dismissed  with  shorter  descriptions.  The 
Abyssinian  Church  is  really  a  province  of  the  Monophysite  Church 
of  Egypt »  sharing  its  heresy  and  imitating  its  customs.  The 
Jacobites  are  the  Monophysites  of  Egypt,  a  kind  of  poor  relations 
of  the  Copts,  never  more  than  a  comparatively  small  and  scattered 
sect.  The  Malabar  people,  the  one  existing  remnant  of  Nestorian 
missions,  have  wavered  between  Nestorian s  and  Monophysites. 
Their  chief  interest  is  their  re-union  with  Rome  in  the  16th 
century  ;  so  that  they  will  occupy  a  greater  place  in  the  volume 
about  the  Uniates.  This  part,  then,  contains  sketches  of  these 
three  Churches. 


CHAPTER   IX 


THE  ABYSSINIAN  CHURCH 


Far  south  of  Egypt,  in  the  heart  of  East  Africa,  is  the  kingdom 
of  black  people  over  whom  rules  the  Negus.  Everyone  has  heard 
of  Abyssinia.  We  made  war  on  its  king,  Theodore,  in  1867  ;  the 
British  army  took  Magdala  and  brought  back  many  curious  church 
vessels,  books,  pictures  and  garments,  which  now  adorn  the 
British  Museum.  Still  more  recent  is  the  disastrous  Italian 
expedition  of  1895,  which  ended  with  their  defeat  and  frightful 
losses  at  Adua.  Most  people  know,  too,  that  the  black  warriors 
of  the  Negus  are  Christians.  One  would  hardly  hold  up  their 
Christianity  as  a  model ;  nevertheless  they  are  Christians.  Out 
here  in  the  wilds,  south  of  the  Red  Sea,  surrounded  by  Islam,  is 
a  Christian  kingdom ;  the  sign  which  crowns  their  mountains  is 
the  cross ;  these  black  Africans  on  Sunday  gather  to  their 
churches  to  offer  the  same  holy  sacrifice  which  the  Pope  offers 
at  Rome. 

i.  The  Conversion  of  the  Ethiopians 

What  we  know  of  the  history  of  Ethiopia  x  begins  with  its 
conversion  to  Christianity.  Before  that  we  can  only  conjecture 
that  a  Semitic  people  crossed  the  Red  Sea  from  Arabia,2  con- 
quered and  dominated  the  native  African  tribes  in  the  highlands 
between  that  sea  and  the  upper  Nile.  It  is  a  question  whether 
there  was  any  Judaism  or  Jewish  influence  among  them  before 
they  became  Christian.     It  is  not  impossible.     We  know  that 

1  Ethiopia  and  Abyssinia  are  practically  convertible  terms  ;   see  p.  307. 

2  Their  language  is  nearly  akin  to  Arabic. 

293 


294        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Judaism  was  a  considerable  power  in  Arabia  before  Mohammed  ;  J 
the  Abyssinians  may  have  taken  some  traces  of  it  with  them  into 
Africa.  But,  on  the  whole,  there  is  not  enough  evidence  to 
justify  us  in  supposing  this  ;  the  Judaistic  elements  in  their 
Christianity  can  be  explained  otherwise  (p.  319) .  We  may  suppose, 
then,  that  they  were  originally  Pagans  of  the  usual  Semitic  kind, 
polytheists,  like  their  cousins  the  Arabs  before  Mohammed. 

There  are  two  accounts  of  the  conversion  of  the  Ethiopians.2 
The  one  most  commonly  received,  believed  by  themselves,  which, 
all  things  considered,  remains  the  most  probable,  dates  it  in  the 
time  of  Constantine,  about  330-340.  The  story  is  told  by 
Rufinus,3  copied  by  Theodoret,4  Socrates 5  and  Sozomen.6  Rufinus 
calls  Ethiopia  "  India,"  as  do  many  ancient  writers,  to  the  great 
confusion  of  their  modern  readers.  He  tells  the  story  thus  :  At 
the  time  of  Constantine  certain  philosophers,  Metrodorus  and 
Meropius,  a  man  of  Tyre,  travelled  about  in  the  East  "  for  the 
sake  of  seeing  places  and  examining  the  world."  Meropius  had 
with  him  two  Tyrian  young  men,  the  elder  Frumentius  and 
Aedesius  the  younger,  to  whom  he  was  tutor.  While  they  were 
coming  back,  presumably  up  the  Red  Sea,  they  were  attacked  by 
barbarians.  Meropius  got  to  his  ship  and  escaped  ;  but  the  two 
boys  stayed  behind  "  meditating  under  a  tree  and  preparing  their 
lessons."  So  they  were  caught  and  taken  to  the  barbarian  king. 
At  that  time  the  Ethiopians  had  established  a  kingdom  with 
Aksum  7  as  its  capital ;  they  are  often  called  Aksumites.  Their 
king  made  Aedesius  his  cup-bearer,  and  Frumentius  whose 
admirable  qualities  he  soon  recognized,  his  Chancellor.  When 
the  king  died,  leaving  two  infant  sons,  Frumentius  and  Aedesius 
become  governors  in  their  name.  They  were  Christians,  and 
began  to  preach  the  faith.    The  two  princes,  named  Abreha  and 

1  The  Himyarite  kingdom,  in  the  Yaman  was  Jewish. 

2  The  eunuch  of  Queen  Candace  (Acts  viii.  26-39)  plays  less  part  in 
Ethiopic  legend  than  one  would  expect. 

3  Hist.  Eccl.  i.  9  (P.L.  xxi.  478-480). 

4  Hist.  Eccl.  i.  22  (P.G.  lxxxii.  969-972). 

5  Hist.  Eccl.  i.  19  (P.G.  lxvii.  125-130). 

6  Hist.  Eccl.  ii.  24  (ib.  995-1000). 

7  Aksum,  the  first  centre  of  Ethiopic  Christianity  and  the  Metropolitan 
See  of  Abyssinia,  is  in  the  Tigre  country,  among  the  high  mountains  in  the 
north  of  the  present  kingdom,  west  of  Adua. 


THE  ABYSSINIAN  CHURCH  295 

Asbeha,  grew  up  and  become  joint  kings  ;  then  the  strangers 
"  at  last  came  back  to  our  world."  Aedesius  hastened  to  Tyre 
to  see  his  friends  and  relations.  But  Frumentius  came  to  Alex- 
andria (the  nearest  Christian  centre)  saying  "  that  it  was  not 
right  to  hide  the  Lord's  work."  Here  he  found  the  great  Athana- 
sius  Patriarch.  "  He  told  the  bishop  that  he  should  provide  a 
worthy  man  to  be  bishop  of  the  barbarous  land  for  the  many 
Christians  already  assembled  there  and  for  the  churches  they 
had  already  built."  Athanasius  in  a  council  of  his  clergy  said  : 
"  And  whom  else  shall  we  find  in  whom  is  the  Spirit  of  God,  as 
in  thee,  who  could  so  well  do  this  ?  "  So  he  ordained  Frumentius 
bishop  of  the  Abyssinians.  Frumentius  went  back  to  Aksum, 
preached  the  gospel  with  signs  and  wonders,  converted  the  kings  x 
and  a  great  number  of  people.  "  From  which  time  in  the  lands 
of  '  India '  people  became  Christian,  churches  were  built,  and  a 
priesthood  began."  And  Aedesius,  having  been  ordained  priest 
at  Tyre,  also  came  and  helped  his  old  friend  to  convert  the 
Ethiopians.2 

The  other  account  puts  the  whole  story  much  later,  either 
about  450, under  a  King  Tazana,3  or  even  at  the  time  of  Justinian 
(527-565). 4  But  there  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  Rufinus'  date 
(all  agree  as  to  the  names  of  the  first  missionaries)  ;  it  is  indeed 
powerfully  confirmed  by  a  notice  given  by  St.  Athanasius  himself 
(p.  297).  So  St.  Frumentius  and  St.  Aedesius  5  are  the  apostles 
of  Ethiopia.  St.  Frumentius  is  the  first  Metropolitan  of  Aksum 
and  Primate  of  Abyssinia.  After  his  death  he  was  given  the  title 
Aba  salama  (father  of  peace),6  still  used  by  his  successors. 

1  Kings  Abreha  and  Asbeha  are  saints  in  the  Ethiopic  Calendar 
(October  1).  2  Rufinus,  loc.  cit. 

3  So  E.  Littmann  :  article  "  Abyssinia  "  in  Hastings'  Ency.  of  Religion 
and  Ethics,  i.  57.       4  So  Nikephoros  Kallistos,  xvii.  12  (P.G.  cxlvii.  252). 

5  Aedesius  is  also  called  Sidracus  (Sidrakos). 

6  Ludolf  quotes  an  Ethiopic  hymn  about  Frumentius  : 

"  With  joyful  voice  I  greet  him, 
praising  and  magnifying  him, 
Salama,  gate  of  mercy  and  of  grace, 

who  made  the  glorious  splendour  of  Christ 

shine  in  Ethiopia, 
where  before  were  night  and  darkness." 

(L.  iii.  c.  ii.). 


2 96        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

We  notice  already  the  dependence  of  Abyssinian  Christianity 
on  Egypt.  This  is  natural.  Egypt,  with  its  Patriarch  (the 
second  in  Christendom),  was  the  nearest  Christian  country. 
Frumentius  was  ordained  by  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria ; 
ordination  in  the  East  always  produces  ecclesiastical  dependence. 
So  the  new  Church  fell  into  its  place  in  the  Christian  world 
naturally.  It  was  never  independent  nor  autocephalous.  Till 
Cyprus  claimed  to  be  autocephalous  x  there  was  no  idea  of  inde- 
pendence of  a  Patriarch.  In  the  first  period  there  were  three  and 
only  three  Patriarchs — of  Rome,  Alexandria,  Antioch  ;  every  part 
of  Christendom  was  subject  to  one  of  these  three.  Missionary 
Churches  beyond  the  empire  were  added  to  the  domain  of  the 
centre  from  which  they  received  their  faith  and  bishops,  practically 
the  nearest  centre.  So,  just  as  the  Persian  Church  was  counted 
an  outlying  province  of  Edessa  and  through  Edessa  belonged  to 
Antioch,  so  Abyssinia  became  simply  a  province  of  the  Alexan- 
drine Patriarchate.2  This  position  has  hardly  been  disputed 
(except  perhaps  once,  unsuccessfully)  ;  3  indeed  the  bonds  which 
bound  the  Abyssinian  Church  to  Alexandria  have  always  been 
exceedingly  close  ;  they  have  worked  disastrously  to  Abyssinia 
by  making  her  share  the  Coptic  heresy.  The  Primate  of  Abys- 
sinia has  never  been  counted  as  an  independent  Patriarch  ;  he 
has  always  been  a  suffragan  of  Alexandria,  has  always  been 
ordained  there,  and  is  now  always  a  Coptic  monk  (p.  309)  sent  from 
Egypt.  We  shall  find  the  Church  of  Abyssinia,  then,  in  every 
way  a  humble  and  backward  daughter  of  the  Coptic  Church.4 
Her  liturgy,  vestments,  canon  law  and,  to  a  great  extent,  customs 
are  Coptic  in  origin ;  but  she  has  evolved  some  local  practices 
of  her  own.  In  general,  we  may  say  that  she  owes  all  the  good  in 
her  to  the  Copts,  she  shares  their  weaknesses  and  has  further  weak 
points  of  her  own.  The  Copts  themselves  do  not  hold  a  very 
enlightened  form  of  Christianity ;  we  can  imagine  what  a 
backward  dependent  of  their  Church  must  be,  we  can  conceive 
how  little  culture,  theology  and  spirituality  there  is  in  a  body 

1  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  pp.  47-48. 

2  Barhebraeus  sees  this  parallel ;   ed.  cit.  i.  656-658.  3  See  p.  300. 

4  A  discussion  of  the  dependence  of  Abyssinia  on  the  Coptic  Church  will 
be  found  in  Renaudot  :    Liturg.  Orient.  Coll.  (ed.  cit.),  i.  417-419. 


THE  ABYSSINIAN   CHURCH  297 

which  looks  to  the  Coptic  Patriarch  as  its  highest  standard, 
conscious  that  it  lags  some  way  behind  that  exalted  ideal.  So  we 
are  not  surprised  to  find  the  Church  founded  under  such  happy 
auspices,  when  Athanasius  laid  his  hands  on  Frumentius,  now 
considerably  the  most  backward  part  of  the  whole  Christian 
family. 

2.  Christian  Ethiopia  in  the  Past 

The  Church  founded  by  Frumentius  and  Aedesius  soon  became 
the  religion  of  the  State  of  Aksum  and  of  all  the  real  (Semitic) 
Abyssinians.  From  their  time  till  to-day  there  has  been  a  powerful 
Christian  State  south  of  Nubia.  Its  frontiers  have  varied  con- 
siderably, as  the  King  of  Abyssinia  gained  or  lost  territory  by  the 
fortune  of  war.  Not  all  his  subjects  have  been  Christian.  The 
King  himself,  his  court  and  his  own  people  are  always  ;  but  they 
have  often  ruled  and  still  do  rule  over  subject  tribes  who  remain 
Pagan  or  Moslem.  The  next  thing  we  hear  of  the  Ethiopic  Church 
is  a  happy  omen  of  its  orthodoxy,  unhappily  not  to  be  fulfilled  in 
later  years.  It  refused  to  accept  Arianism.  In  365  Constantius 
wrote  to  beg  the  Abyssinian  King  to  send  Frumentius  to  Alex- 
andria, that  he  might  learn  the  true  faith  from  (and  join  in  com- 
munion with)  the  Arian  intruded  Patriarch  George  (356-362). 
At  the  same  time  he  warned  him  against  Athanasius,  who  had 
been  deposed  "  for  many  crimes."  x  But  Frumentius  and  the 
king  remained  faithful  to  the  saint  from  whom  they  had  received 
their  hierarchy. 

Christianity  was  then  strengthened  and  extended  in  Abyssinia 
by  the  monks  of  Upper  Egypt .  These  have  hardly  had  j  ustice  done 
to  them  as  propagators  of  the  faith.  They  preached  the  gospel 
with  great  zeal  among  the  heathen  south  of  Egypt.  They  built 
up  flourishing  churches  in  Nubia  (p.  305),  and  so  met  the  Christian 
Ethiopians.  In  the  5th  and  6th  centuries  Coptic  monks  came  to 
Abyssinia  and  revived  or  reorganized  Christianity  there,  so  that 
the  Ethiopians  count  this  as  a  kind  of  second  conversion  of  their 
country.  About  the  year  480,  in  the  time  of  King  Ameda,  came 
the  "  Nine  Saints,"  still  honoured  as  secondary  apostles  of  the 
country.    They  were  Coptic  monks,  named  Aragawi,  Pantaleon, 

1  Athanasius  :   Apol.  contra  Arianos,  30  (P.G.  xxv.  297-299). 


298   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Garima,  Alef,  Sahara,  Afe,  Likanos,  Adimata  and  Oz  or  Guba. 
During  this  time  the  Negus  extended  his  power  mightily.  Invited 
by  the  Roman  Emperor,  he  crossed  the  Red  Sea  in  the  6th  century, 
defeated  the  Jewish  Himyarite  king  in  Arabia  and  established  his 
Government  in  the  Hadramaut  and  Yaman.  But  the  Persians 
soon  came  and  drove  out  the  Ethiopians,  so  that  before  the  end  of 
the  6th  century  thay  had  lost  their  possessions  in  Arabia.  The 
"  Year  of  the  Elephant,"  x  famous  in  Moslem  history,  was  an 
incident  of  the  Abyssinian  war  in  Arabia.  The  year  of  the  Ele- 
phant is  570  or  571 — the  year  of  Mohammed's  birth.2  In  that  year 
an  Abyssinian  Christian  general,  whom  the  Arabs  call  Abrahatu- 
1  Ashram,  marched  on  Mecca  with  an  army  and  elephants, 
threatening  to  destroy  the  Ka'ba.  But  he  was  defeated  and  his 
army  was  destroyed  in  some  unknown  manner,  concerning  which 
the  Koran  has  a  story  of  signs  and  wonders.3 

We  do  not  know  how,  nor  at  what  moment,  the  Abyssinian 
Church  turned  Monophysite.  But  that  it  should  do  so  was  almost 
inevitable.  We  have  seen  that  Monophysism  became  the  national 
religion  of  Egypt.  Especially  Upper  Egypt,  with  which  Abys- 
sinia was  in  nearest  contact,  was  solidly  Monophysite.  There 
seems  no  doubt  that  the  "  Nine  Saints  "  were  Monophysites. 
Naturally  the  Coptic  monks  who  came  to  Abyssinia  would  tell  the 
people  their  version  of  the  story  ;  how  the  Roman  Emperor  was 
reviving  the  heresy  of  Nestorius,  undoing  the  work  of  Ephesus 
and  trying  to  force  Nestorius's  heresy  on  Egypt,  how  the  lawful 
Patriarch  Dioscor  had  been  maltreated  at  Chalcedon,  how  the 
true  Egyptian  Christians  were  being  persecuted  by  Greek  Melkites. 
Naturally,  too,  the  Ethiopians  believed  all  that  their  instructors 
said.  So  the  Copts  easily  dragged  their  daughter-Church  into 
heresy  with  them.  Ever  since  the  Copts  have  been  Monophysites 
the   Abyssinians  have  shared  their  heresy,   agreeing  with  the 

1  'am  al-fil. 

2  Sprenger  calculates  the  date  of  the  Prophet's  birth  as  April  20,  571  (Das 
Leben  u.  die  Lehre  des  Mohammad,  2nd  ed.,  Berlin,  1869,  vol.  i.  p.  138). 

3  Surah  105  (Suratu-lfil) .  The  legend  here  told  is  one  of  the  paradoxes 
of  the  Koran.  The  Abyssinians  were  Christians,  and  their  religion,  accord- 
ing to  Mohammed,  was  at  that  time  the  right  one.  They  were  about  to 
destroy  the  Ka'ba,  then  a  pagan  temple.  Yet  God  interferes  and  works 
miracles  to  save  the  pagan  Ka'ba  from  Christians. 


THE  ABYSSINIAN   CHURCH  299 

mother-Church  with  which  they  are  in  communion.  But  it  is 
one  of  the  most  excusable,  one  of  the  least  responsible  schisms  in 
Church  history.  What  could  these  poor  blacks  in  the  heart  of 
Africa  understand  of  the  issues  involved,  how  could  they  realize 
the  importance  of  the  agreement  of  the  great  Church  beyond 
Egypt  ?  They  have  never  seen  further  than  the  monks  of  Upper 
Egypt  and  the  Coptic  Patriarchate — to  them  the  centre  of  the 
world.  Then  to  the  Ethiopians,  too,  Monophysism  (never  really 
understood)  became  the  national  Church  and  the  national  cause. 
All  they  know  about  it  is  that  they  are  against  anyone  who  annoys 
their  father  at  Alexandria.  But  their  heretical  patrons  did  good 
to  them  also.  It  was  Coptic  monks  who  first  translated  the 
Bible  into  their  language  (Ge'z). 

There  now  follows  a  period  of  darkness  for  centuries.  The 
Abyssinian  kingdom  fell  back  into  a  small  highland  state,  sur- 
rounded by  Islam  on  all  sides.  We  can  only  imagine  Christianity 
living  still  in  the  Tigre  mountains,  following  in  its  development 
the  lines  of  the  Coptic  mother-Church.  The  Abyssinians  evolved 
their  liturgies  on  the  Coptic  model  (p.  316) ;  they  had  monasteries, 
as  had  the  Copts  ;  their  Metropolitan  (Abuna,  see  p.  308)  came  to 
them  from  Egypt,  always  ordained  by  the  Coptic  Patriarch. 
Kosmas  Indikopleustes  (6th  century,  p.  104)  knows  that  there  are 
Christians  and  bishops  in  Ethiopia.1  In  Jerusalem  there  was  an 
Abyssinian  monastery  in  the  Middle  Ages.  In  1177  and  again  at 
the  time  of  Pope  Eugene  IV  (1431-1447)  the  Abyssinian  king 
made  advances  towards  union  with  Catholics,  and  a  monastery  for 
his  people  was  established  at  Rome.2  The  dependence  of  the 
Abyssinian  Church  on  the  Coptic  Patriarchate  during  all  this  time 
was  clearly  marked.  Already  it  seems  that  the  Abyssinian  Abuna 
was  normally,  if  not  always,  not  only  ordained  in  Egypt,  but 
himself  a  Coptic  monk,  as  is  now  the  rule.  The  Coptic  Patriarch 
Benjamin  I  (620-659,  p.  228)  sent  one  of  his  monks,  named  Cyril, 
to  be  Abuna  of  Abyssinia.3     The  Copts  managed  to  keep  the 

1  Ed.  cit.  pp.  50-68  (cf.  p.  vi). 

2  Baronius  :  Annates  Eccl.  vol.  xix.  (Lucca,  1746),  p.  451  ;  Raynald  : 
Ann.  Eccl.  vol.  ix.  (Lucca,  1752),  p.  367. 

3  Renaudot  :  Hist.  Patr.  Alex.  p.  455.  The  definite  law  that  Abuna 
must  always  be  a  Copt  is  said  to  have  been  made  by  Abuna  Takla  Hai- 
manSt  about  the  year  1270,  in  the  reign  of  King  Yekuno  Amlak. 


3oo        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

appointment  and  consecration  of  Abuna  in  their  own  hands  by 
not  allowing  the  number  of  Abyssinian  bishops  to  increase. 
Probably  in  the  8th  century  they  forged  an  alleged  canon  of 
the  Council  of  Nicsea,  according  to  which  Ethiopia  is  not  to 
have  a  Patriarch,  but  is  to  be  subject  to  Alexandria.  The 
Abyssinian  Metropolitan  is  called  Katholikos,  "  which  is 
less  than  a  Patriarch."  1  At  the  same  time  they  imposed 
on  the  daughter-Church  a  further  law  by  which  even  the 
Abyssinian  suffragan  bishops  must  be  ordained  by  the  Patriarch 
of  Alexandria.2  About  the  year  iooo  there  was  a  revolution  in 
Ethiopia  by  which  a  usurping  Jewess  made  herself  queen  ;  her 
dynasty  lasted  till  1268.  For  a  time  the  line  of  Metropolitans  was 
interrupted  ;  no  Abuna  came  from  Egypt.  Then  Philotheos  of 
Alexandria  (c.  981-1004)  ordained  one  Daniel  and  sent  him  to 
Aksum.3  In  1268  there  was  a  counter-revolution.  Yekuno 
Amlak,  of  the  old  line,  was  restored  ;  under  him  and  his  successors 
the  kingdom  again  becomes  powerful.  One  version  of  the  legend 
of  Prester  John  (p.  106)  places  him  in  Abyssinia.4  It  is  sometimes 
said  that  the  story  may  have  arisen  from  the  fact  that,  in  the 
absence  of  a  bishop,  the  King  of  Abyssinia  performed  episcopal 
functions.  But  the  great  majority  of  legends  place  Prester  John 
in  Central  Asia.  As  people  in  Europe  knew  that  there  was  a 
Christian  king  in  Ethiopia,  as  the  mediaeval  concept  of  "  India  " 
was  so  vague,  it  can  be  understood  that  a  variant  of  the  story  may 
have  transferred  its  scene  to  the  equally  vague  "  Ethiopia."  At 
intervals  we  hear  of  the  ordination  of  a  Coptic  monk  as  Abuna  of 
Abyssinia  ;  such  incidents,  telling  us  generally  a  mere  name,  are 
all  we  have  of  Ethiopic  Church  history.5     The  Moslem  rulers  of 

1  Canons  of  Nicaea  in  the  Arabic  version,  Can.  42  (Mansi,  ii.  994).  The 
Copts  also  set  up  a  law  that  a  Metropolitan  must  be  ordained  by  twelve 
bishops.  Then,  by  not  allowing  the  Ethiopians  to  have  more  than  seven, 
they  secured  the  right  of  ordaining  Abuna  themselves. 

2  Renaudot  :  Hist.  Pair.  Alex.  ib.  He  quotes  the  Canons  of  Ibn  Nasal 
(p.  242).  3  Lequien,  Or.  Christ,  ii.  650. 

4  Oppert  :  Der  Presbyter  Johannes  (Berlin,  1870),  pp.  94-95.  Abu  Salih 
shares  the  popular  idea.  He  says  :  "  All  the  Kings  of  Abyssinia  are  priests, 
and  celebrate  the  liturgy  within  the  sanctuary  "  {Churches  and  Monasteries, 
ed.  cit.  p.  286). 

5  Ludolf  gives  an  incomplete  list  of  Metropolitans  of  Ethiopia  (Hist.  JEth. 
L.  iii.  c.  iii.  §§  17-25).  The  Abyssinians  do  not  count  the  Uniates  of  the 
i6th-i7th  centuries  among  them. 


THE  ABYSSINIAN   CHURCH  301 

Egypt  often  interfere  in  these  appointments  ;  they  insist  on  being 
consulted  and  demand  a  bribe  from  the  Patriarch  each  time.  The 
Christian  King  of  Abyssinia  to  the  south  of  their  domain  was 
always  an  object  of  suspicion  to  the  Moslems.  They  did  all  they 
could  to  discourage  and  hinder  communication  between  him  and 
their  Coptic  rayahs.1  In  the  nth  century  we  hear  of  Severus, 
Metropolitan  of  Aksum,  obtaining  his  place  by  bribing  the 
Fatimid  Khalif  and  promising  to  persuade  the  Abyssinians  to 
accept  the  Khalif's  rule.  So  he  succeeded  in  ousting  a  rival  at 
Aksum.  He  turned  out  to  be  rather  a  good  bishop,  and  took 
steps  to  put  down  the  polygamy  or  concubinage  which  has  always 
been  the  great  stain  on  Ethiopic  Christianity.  The  Egyptian 
Moslems  were  able  to  force  the  Abyssinian  king  to  maintain  a 
certain  number  of  mosques  in  his  country  for  the  benefit  of  his 
subject  Moslem  tribes.  These  were  occasionally  torn  down  by 
the  Christian  Ethiopians.  When  Badr  alGama.li  was  mighty  in 
Egypt  (1073-1094,  see  p.  237)  he  heard  of  such  a  destruction  of 
mosques  in  Abyssinia,  and  wrote  threatening  to  destroy  all  Coptic 
churches  unless  the  mosques  were  rebuilt.  But  the  king 
answered  that  if  the  stone  of  a  Coptic  church  were  touched  he 
would  cross  the  sea  to  Mecca,  grind  up  the  Ka'ba  and  send  it  in 
powder  to  Cairo.2  There  were  other  occasions  on  which  the 
Abyssinians  interfered  to  protect  the  Copts.  Thus,  when  a 
Mamluk  Sultan  put  the  Patriarch  Mark  IV  (1348-1363)  in  prison, 
the  King  of  Abyssinia  threatened  various  retaliations,  which  had 
the  effect  of  setting  Mark  free.  In  the  13th  century  Abuna  Kilus 
behaved  badly  ;  he  had  a  priest  flogged  to  death.  He  had  to  flee 
the  country,  came  to  Cairo,  was  tried  and  deposed  by  the  Patri- 
arch ;  and  people  paid  three  dirhems  for  the  hire  of  one  donkey 
to  see  it  done.3  Meanwhile  the  Copts  had  repeatedly  prevented 
attempts  of  the  Abyssinians  to  raise  the  number  of  their  sees  to 
twelve,  so  that  they  could  ordain  their  own  Metropolitan  ;  indeed, 
for  a  long  time  there  were  no  other  bishops  in  the  country  except 
Abuna  himself.  Under  the  Coptic  Patriarch  Gabriel  II  (1131- 
1145)  the  king  wanted  Abuna  Michael  to  ordain  more  suffragans, 
in  order  that  they  might  themselves  ordain  his  successor.    The 

1  Renaudot  :   Hist.  Patr.  Alex.  pp.  381,  454,  etc. 

2  Renaudot :   op.  cit.  463-464.  3  lb.  360-363. 


302        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Copts  prevented  this.1  So  we  must  conceive  this  Church  always 
dependent  on  the  Copts,  having  little  special  history  to  chronicle,2 
till  the  16th  century.  Then  comes  an  important  incident,  and  we 
have  suddenly  a  flood  of  information  about  the  country  and  its 
Church.  The  Portuguese  came  to  Africa,  made  a  treaty  with  the 
King  of  Abyssinia,  sent  zealous  Catholic  missionaries  into  the 
country  and  brought  about  a  union  with  the  Catholic  Church. 
But  this  story  belongs  to  our  next  volume,  on  the  Uniates.  Here 
it  must  be  enough  to  note  that  the  Portuguese  missionaries  were 
the  first  Western  people  to  study  the  Abyssinian  Church.  We 
owe  to  their  accounts  most  of  our  knowledge  of  its  customs.3 
For  about  a  century  (1555-1640)  the  Abyssinian  Church  was 
Catholic.  During  that  time  it  broke  its  connection  with  the  Copts; 
Abuna  was  nominated  by  the  Pope.  At  the  beginning  of  this 
intercourse  with  Rome,  King  Claude  (1540-1559)  sent  a  profession 
of  his  faith.4  It  is  a  good  statement  of  Monophysite  Christianity, 
and  shows  that  the  writer  understood  the  issue  and  was  quite 
consciously  Monophysite.  Then  came  a  reaction.  A  new  king 
(Basilides,  1632-1665)  drove  out  the  Jesuits  and  all  Catholic 
missionaries,  forbade  any  Catholic  priest  to  live  in  his  land,  and 
restored  the  dependence  of  his  Church  on  the  Coptic  Patriarch. 
Meanwhile  during  the  Portuguese  ascendancy  they  had  saved  the 
country  from  a  Moslem  invasion  under  Mohammed  Ahmed 
Gran  ye  (1528)  .5 
From   the   failure   of  the   Portuguese   missionaries   we   date 

1  Renaudot  :  op.  cit.  510-51 1.  There  have  been  continual  revolutions 
and  changes  of  dynasty  in  Abyssinia. 

2  The  Liber  Axumce  (edited  with  a  translation  by  K.  Conti  Rossini  as 
vol.  8  of  the  second  series  of  Ethiopic  authors  in  Chabot's  Corpus  scrip- 
torum  christianorum  orientalium,  Paris,  1909)  throws  interesting  light  on 
the  mediaeval  Abyssinian  Church.  It  is  a  list  of  donations  made  to  the 
Metropolitan  Church  at  Aksum,  with  many  curious  legends  and  historical 
details. 

3  For  instance,  Bermudez,  translated  into  English  by  Purchas  (Purchas 
his  Pilgrimes,  London,  1625,  part  2),  and  French  by  La  Croze  Mendez 
{LittercB  cethiopicce,  Mecheln,  1628),  Lobo  {Voyage  historique  d'Abyssinie, 
transl.  by  M.  le  Grand,  Paris,  1728),  etc. 

4  In  Ludolf's  Comment.,  pp.  237-241.  Archdeacon  Dowling  (The 
Abyssinian  Church,  pp.  iv-v)  quotes  this  very  incompletely  and  admires 
it  vastly.     But  probably  he  does  not  know  of  the  rest. 

5  He  overran  Abyssinia,  and  threatened  to  wipe  out  the  Christian  State 
from  1525  to  1540.     He  was  probably  a  Somali  or  Galla. 


THE  ABYSSINIAN  CHURCH  303 

modern  Abyssinia.  The  characteristic  of  its  history  is  a  great 
distrust  and  fear  of  Europeans  and  European  missionaries.  No 
doubt  they  thought  that  the  Portuguese  meant  eventually  to 
annex  their  country  ;  maybe  this  idea  was  not  altogether  wrong. 
Their  Church  is  their  nation  ;  they  do  not  want  either  to  be 
interfered  with  by  Europe.  So  there  have  been  repeated  laws 
forbidding  missionaries  of  any  other  religion  to  come  into  the 
country.1  The  accounts  of  the  Portuguese  aroused  considerable 
interest  in  this  ancient  kingdom.  A  number  of  missionaries,  both 
Catholic  and  Protestant,  tried  to  approach  Abyssinia.  In  times 
of  slack  discipline  they  succeeded  ;  but  always,  as  soon  as  they 
began  to  make  converts,  they  were  driven  out  again.  These 
missionaries  never  succeeded  in  forming  rival  Churches  to  the 
State  religion  ;  they  are  only  important  inasmuch  as  they  brought 
back  accounts  of  the  country.  Peter  Heyling  from  Liibeck, 
the  first  Protestant  missionary,  came  in  1634  ar*d  made  a  vain 
attempt  to  preach  his  religion.  In  the  early  19th  century  the 
Church  Missionary  Society  made  a  great  effort.  James  Bruce 
travelled  in  Abyssinia  in  the  years  1768-1773,  and  wrote  an 
account  of  the  country.2  He  persuaded  an  Abyssinian  monk  to 
translate  the  Bible  into  the  modern  language  (Amharic)  ;  this 
was  published  by  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society.3  In  1830 
the  C.M.S.  sent  Samuel  Gobat 4  and  Christian  Kugler  ;  they 
were  followed  by  C.  W.  Isenberg  and  Ludwig  Krapf .  The  mission 
had  to  be  abandoned  by  the  year  1850.  In  1858  a  Protestant 
missionary  society  at  Basel  made  an  equally  unsuccessful  attempt. 
We  shall  describe  the  Catholic  missions  in  our  next  volume. 
They  alone,  in  spite  of  enormous  difficulties,  remain  in  the  country 
and  have  a  seminary  in  which  they  educate  a  native  Catholic  clergy. 
But  the  Catholic  mission  is  still  very  small.  Practically  there  is 
no  tolerance  in  Abyssinia.5  There  is  a  colony  of  the  ubiquitous 
Jews  between  Aksum  and  Gondar.  The  great  danger  is  Islam, 
which  surrounds  the  Ethiopic  Church  on  all  sides.     Many  tribes 

1  Already  in  the  Middle  Ages  they  had  a  law  that  no  foreigner  who 
entered  Abyssinia  should  ever  return  home. 

2  Travels  in  Abessinia,  London,  1790.  3  Not  complete. 

4  Afterwards  Anglo-Lutheran  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  (1845-1879). 

5  There  is  now  one  small  Swedish  Lutheran  mission,  under  Dr.  Adolf 
Kolmadin,  on  the  frontier,  in  the  Italian  colony  Eritrea. 


304        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

politically  subject  to  the  King  of  Abyssinia  are  Moslem.  They 
are  not  allowed  to  build  mosques  in  the  central  (Christian)  part  of 
the  country,  and  the  conversion  of  a  Christian  to  Islam  is  still 
forbidden  by  law.  But,  in  spite  of  that,  Islam  is  making  alarming 
progress  among  the  Tigre  tribes  in  the  north.  It  is  said  that 
already  nearly  two-thirds  of  these  tribes  have  been  won  by  Moslem 
missionaries  from  the  Sudan.1  Lastly,  we  may  note  that  the 
Orthodox  Russians  show  great  friendliness  to  the  Abyssinians,  and 
may  very  likely  make  an  attempt  to  detach  them  from  their 
ancient  dependence  on  the  Copts  and  to  turn  them  into  an 
Orthodox  Church  dependent  on  the  Czar.  In  1904  the  Abyssinians 
quarrelled  with  the  Copts  over  the  possession  of  the  Coptic 
monastery  (Dair  asSultan)  by  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  which  they 
said  ought  to  belong  to  them,  since  St.  Helen  gave  it  to  the  King 
of  Abyssinia.  The  Negus  was  so  angry  about  it  that  he  broke  all 
relations  with  the  Coptic  Patriarch,  made  a  schism  from  Egypt, 
and  sent  a  general,  Metshetshia  Warkye,  to  Jerusalem  and 
Constantinople  to  persuade  the  Turks  to  hand  it  over  to  him. 
He  was  overwhelmed  with  attentions  by  the  Russians,  who  took 
up  his  cause  hotly.  They  hoped  great  things  from  the  schism 
against  the  Copts  ;  Orthodox  papers  began  to  foretell  the  speedy 
conversion  of  Abyssinia  to  Orthodoxy.  However,  the  English 
Embassy  took  up  the  cause  of  our  clients  (Egypt) ,  and  the  Sublime 
Porte,  as  usual,  promised  everything  to  everybody  and  did 
nothing  at  all.  So  far  the  Abyssinians  have  not  turned  Orthodox 
and  have  not  got  the  monastery.2 


3.   Christianity  in  Nubia 

Before  we  describe  the  Abyssinian  Church  as  it  is  to-day,  we 
must  say  a  word  about  the  old  Church  of  Nubia,  if  only  to  point 
out  that  once  there  was  one.  It  is  difficult  to  realize  that  the 
heart  of  the  Sudan,  the  desert  which  we  associate  with  the  horrors 
of  the  Mahdi  and  Khalifa,  of  Khartum  and  Omdurman,  was  once 

1  See  the  article  by  E.  Littmann  in  Der  Islam  (Hamburg)  for  1910,  and 
Karl  Cederquist :  Islam  and  Christianity  in  Abyssinia  (The  Moslem 
World,  vol.  11.  1912,  Feb.  pp.  152-156). 

2  See  the  £chos  d' Orient,  1904,  pp.  309-310;   1906,  p.  124. 


THE  ABYSSINIAN  CHURCH  305 

a  flourishing  Christian  country.     It  needs  an  effort  to  imagine 
Dongola,  of  all  places,  as  a  centre  of  Christianity. 

Apart  from  legends  about  the  Eunuch  of  Queen  Candace  as  a 
missionary,  Barhebraeus  counts  the  conversion  of  Nubia 1  as 
made  under  Justinian  (523-565)  by  a  Coptic  monk,  Julian.2  In 
any  case,  it  seems  due  to  the  zeal  of  the  monks  of  Upper  Egypt. 
They  preached  the  gospel  south  of  their  monasteries  and  con- 
verted tribes  of  blacks.  These  people  got  their  bishops  from 
Egypt,  and  so,  like  the  Abyssinians,  followed  Egypt  into  Mono- 
physism.  The  Syrian  historian  John  of  Ephesus,3  in  the  6th 
century,  took  a  great  interest  in  the  Nubian  Church,  and  describes 
its  origin  and  state  at  length.4  In  the  7th  century  there  was  a 
mighty  Christian  kingdom  of  Nubia  between  Egypt  and  Abyssinia, 
which  formed  a  great  barrier  to  the  Moslems  of  Egypt.  Its 
capital  was  Dongola  on  the  Nile.5  There  was  constantly  fighting 
between  the  King  of  Nubia  and  the  Moslems.  The  Moslems  sent 
embassies  to  their  neighbour,  invaded  his  land  or  were  invaded 
by  him.  From  the  ambassadors  we  have  descriptions  of  this 
Church.  They  say  that  in  the  capital  there  were  churches,  well- 
built  and  large,  full  of  golden  ornaments.  Under  the  king  were 
thirteen  governors,  who  were  also  bishops.  The  people  are  all 
Monophysites  dependent  on  the  Coptic  Patriarch.  Their  holy 
books  were  written  in  Greek  ;  but  they  had  versions  in  their  own 
language.6     The  Nubians  also  came  to  the  defence  of  the  Copts. 

1  Nubia  is  the  Northern  Sudan,  beginning  at  the  southern  frontier  of 
Egypt  (now  by  Wadi  Halfah) . 

2  Chron.  Eccl.  i.  230-233. 

3  John  of  Ephesus  (f  soon  after  585)  was  a  Monophysite  monk  at  Con- 
stantinople and  a  friend  of  Justinian.  He  wrote  the  first  Syriac  Church 
History  (the  third  part  was  edited  by  W.  Cureton,  Oxford,  1853,  trans- 
lated by  R.  Payne-Smith,  ib.  i860  ;  all  that  remains,  in  German  :  Die 
Kirchengeschichte  des  Johannes  von  Ephesus,  by  J.  M.  Schonfelder,  Munich, 
1862).      See  Duval :  Litter atur e  syriaque,  191-195. 

4  Ed.  Payne-Smith,  iv.  6-8  (pp.  251-258). 

5  Besides  this  kingdom,  of  which  the  sovereign  is  generally  called  King  of 
the  Nubians  (malik  an-Nub)  by  Moslem  writers,  there  were  other  Christian 
States  between  Egypt  and  Abyssinia  ;  notably  we  hear  of  a  King  of  Aluwah 
in  the  10th  century. 

6  So  the  Kitab  alfihrist  and  'Abdu-llah  ibn  Ahmad  ibn  Sulaim,  who 
came  on  an  embassy  from  the  first  Fatimid  Khalif  (Mu'izz,  953-975)  to 
King  George  of  Nubia.  Their  accounts  are  translated  by  Quatremere : 
Memoires  geographiques  et  historiques  sur  VEgypte    (Paris,  1811),  ii.  1-126. 

20 


3o6        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

When  the  Patriarch  Michael  I  (743-767)  was  imprisoned,  they 
attacked  Egypt  and  forced  the  Government  to  let  him  go.1  But 
the  Moslems,  on  the  whole,  did  succeed  in  asserting  some  kind  of 
supremacy  over  Nubia.  They  made  the  Nubians  pay  a  yearly 
tribute  of  money  and  slaves.  The  king  had  to  tolerate  Islam  in 
his  domain,  and  to  keep  a  mosque  in  good  repair  on  the  out- 
skirts of  his  city.2  In  the  nth  century  Nubia  began  to  lose 
ground  and  to  decline.  There  was  a  revival ;  but  at  last,  about 
the  15th  century,  Islam  swept  this  Christian  State  away.  The 
Nubians  had  no  mountains  in  which  they  could  take  refuge,  like 
the  Abyssinians.  As  late  as  the  17th  century,  Vansleb  says  that 
there  are  still  churches  in  Nubia,  not  used  because  there  are  no 
priests.3  Now  nothing  is  left  but  ruins  all  over  Northern  Sudan  ; 4 
the  descendants  of  these  valiant  Christian  warriors  are  the 
savages  who  rose  for  the  Mahdi. 

We  have,  then,  the  picture  of  this  extinct  Christianity  lasting 
over  a  thousand  years.  From  about  the  4th  to  the  15th  cen- 
tury Nubia  was  Christian.  Of  its  theology  and  rites  we  know 
little  or  nothing  directly  ;  but  we  may  deduce  fairly  safely  that 
they  were  based  on  those  of  the  Copts  ;  though  Abu  Salih's 
"  Greek  "  books  are  rather  surprising.  Did  they  keep  a  Greek 
(St.  Mark  ?)  liturgy,  or  does  he  take  Coptic  characters  for  Greek 
(a  pardonable  mistake  in  an  Arab)  ?  The  mass  of  ruins  the  Chris- 
tians have  left  give  us  an  idea  of  the  prosperity  of  their  Church. 
They  had  a  large  hierarchy  and  a  flourishing  civilization.  Ibn 
Sulaim  says  he  "  passed  through  nearly  thirty  towns  with  fine 
houses,  monasteries,  numberless  palm-groves,  vineyards,  gardens 


There  is  an  essay  on  Christian  Nubia  and  its  relation  to  the  Coptic  Patriarch 
in  Renaudot :  Liturg.  Orient.  Coll.  (ed.  cit.)  i.  416-417.  See  also  Abu 
Salih  :  Churches  and  Monasteries  of  Egypt  (ed.  Evetts  and  Butler),  pp. 
262-274. 

1  Lequien  :   op.  cit.  ii.  662. 

2  See  the  terms  granted  by  'Abdu-llah  ibn  Sa'd  to  the  Nubians  in  652, 
after  he  had  defeated  them,  in  S.  Lane-Poole  :  Hist,  of  Egypt  in  the  Middle 
Ages,  pp.  21-23. 

3  Hist,  du  Patr.  d'Alexandrie,  p.  30. 

4  These  are  described  by  Rosellini  :  /  monumenti  dell'  Egitto  e  della  Nubia, 
Pisa,  1832-1844  ;  Champollion  :  Monuments  de  I'Egypte  et  de  la  Nubie, 
Paris,  1844  ;  G.  Mileham  :  Churches  in  Lower  Nubia  (E.  B.  Coxe,  Jr., 
Expedition  to  Nubia,  vol.  ii.),  Univ.  Museum,  Philadelphia,  191  o. 


THE  ABYSSINIAN  CHURCH  307 

and  wide-spreading  fields,  besides  herds  of  camels  of  great 
beauty  and  breeding."  Khartum,  then,  had  splendid  churches 
and  fine  houses.1 

4.  The  Negus  and  his  People 

Ethiopia  and  Abyssinia  are  practically  convertible  terms.2 
Lately,  however,  geographers  begin  to  use  Ethiopia  as  a  purely 
geographical  term  for  the  highlands  between  the  Upper  Nile  and 
the  bottom  of  the  Red  Sea,  Abyssinia  as  a  political  name  for 
the  domain  over  which  the  Negus  is  king.  The  heart  of  this 
domain  is  the  mountain-land  with  high  tablelands  to  the  north 
of  the  present  kingdom.  There  are  three  races  of  inhabitants  in 
Abyssinia.  The  aborigines  (Shangala)  are  African  negroes,  mostly 
fetish-worshippers  and  animists,  with  witch-doctors  ;  some  are 
Moslems,  a  few  Christian  converts.  The  Hamitic  tribes  form  the 
main  stock  of  the  population.  They  are  akin  to  the  ancient 
Egyptians,  and  keep  a  language  of  that  family.  The  Gallas  to  the 
south  belong  to  this  race.  They  are  Polytheists  or  Moslems, 
with  some  Christians .  The  dominant  race,  the  Abyssinians  proper, 
are  the  Semites  who  invaded  the  country,  probably  from  Arabia. 
Most  of  these  are  Christian.  They  are  much  mixed  in  blood  with 
the  older  Hamitic  tribes.  It  is  this  race  of  Semites  which  made 
the  kingdom  ;  the  Abyssinian  Church  is  their  Church.  They 
hold  the  Government  and  rule  over  the  others.  Their  language 
is  Semitic.  When  you  have  mastered  the  difficult  syllabic  letters 
it  turns  out  to  be  closely  allied  to  Arabic.  Indeed,  Amharic, 
when  you  hear  it  spoken,  sounds  like  a  rough  Arabic  dialect.  The 
old  form  of  the  language  is  Ge'z  (lesan  ge'z).3  This  is  the  classical 
language  of  their  ancient  literature,  still  used  for  all  Church 

1  Quatremere  :    loc.  cit.  ii.  6-35. 

2  The  old  name  is  always  Ethiopia  (Greek  AWioty,  "  Burnt-face,"  from 
alQw  o\p,  Latin  Aethiops).  They  call  themselves  this  (TtySpya,  Ttyopyawi). 
Abyssinia  is  a  comparatively  modern  formation  from  the  Arabic  habas, 
"  mixed  "  (originally  a  term  of  contempt  for  the  mixed  races  and  religions 
of  the  country).  The  y  has  no  justification  at  all.  The  older  form  Abes- 
sinia  (used  still  in  German)  would  be  much  better. 

3  "  The  tongue  of  the  freemen  (or  of  the  Ethiopians)."  Ge'z  is  the  old 
name  for  Ethiopian  (Praetorius  :  Gramm.  csthiopica,  p.  63)  ;  the  Hebrew 
Kus  (Ezechiel,  xxix.  10)  ? 


3o8        THE  LESSER  EASTERN  CHURCHES 

services.1  It  is  now  dead;  no  one  speaks  it,  even  the  clergy 
hardly  understand  it.  It  has  developed  into  three  modern  dialects 
— Tigre,  spoken  in  the  northern  mountains  ;  Tigrinya  around 
Aksum;  and  Amharic,  the  language  of  the  Government,  court 
and  official  classes  generally.2 

The  ruler  of  all  these  people  is  the  Negusha  nagasht  za'ftyopya.3 
He  claims  to  descend  from  King  Solomon  by  the  Queen  of  Sheba.4 
In  Ethiopic  legend  that  lady's  name  was  Makeda ;  her  son,  the 
first  Negus,  was  Menelek  I.  The  Negus  is  proud  of  his  supposed 
Jewish  descent ;  he  speaks  of  "  my  fathers,  the  Kings  of  Israel,"5 
he  is  the  Lion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  ;  he  uses,  as  a  kind  of  coat  of 
arms,  a  lion  passant-gardant,  crowned  imperially,  bearing  in  the 
sinister  jamb  a  banner  of  the  Ethiopian  colours,  gules,  or,  vert, 
fesswise;  and  his  motto  is:  "  Vicit  leo  de  tribu  Iuda."  The 
present  King  is  Menelek  II ;  he  drove  out  the  usurper  John  in 
1889.  He  is  an  absolute  sovereign,  whose  power  is  tempered  by 
that  of  about  forty  governors  or  princes  (Ras)  ruling  parts  of  his 
domain  under  him.  There  are  said  to  be  between  three  and  five 
million  inhabitants  of  Abyssinia,  of  whom  most  are  members  of 
the  national  Church.  Till  1892  the  capital  and  royal  residence 
was  Gondar.    Now  it  is  Adis  Ababa  in  the  central  province  (Shoa). 

5.  The  Hierarchy 

The  head  of  the  Church  of  Abyssinia  (under  the  Coptic  Pat- 
riarch) is  the  Metropolitan  of  Aksum.  He  now  resides  in  Adis 
Ababa.  He  is  called  Abuna  ("  our  father ")  ; 6  also  Aba 
Salama  ("  father  of  peace  ").  We  have  seen  that  Abuna  is  always 
a  Coptic  monk,  chosen  and  ordained  by  the  Coptic  Patriarch. 

1  F.  Praetorius  :  Grammatica  cethiopica  (Karlsruhe  u.  Leipzig,  H.  Reuter, 
Porta  ling,  orient.  1886).  A  still  more  useful  grammar  is  M.  Chaine,  S.J.  : 
Grammaire  ethiopienne  (Beyrouth,  1907). 

2  Praetorius  :   Die  amharische  Sprache  (Halle,  1879). 

3  "  King  of  the  Kings  of  Ethiopia."  He  is  often  called  the  Emperor  of 
Abyssinia.  But  this  comes  only  from  the  silly  practice  of  calling  almost 
any  powerful  sovereign  an  emperor. 

4  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  hereditary  line  has  been  broken  several  times 
in  known  history. 

5  Ludolf  :    Comm.  in  hist,  cethiop.  p.  237. 

6  To  say  "  the  Abuna  "  determines  a  Semitic  word  twice  over,  and  is  as 
wrong  as  "  the  Alcoran." 


THE  ABYSSINIAN  CHURCH  309 

When  a  Metropolitan  dies,  the  king  sends  an.  embassy  to  Cairo, 
with  gifts  for  the  Khedive  and  governor,  asking  for  a  successor. 
On  several  occasions  of  late  the  Abyssinians  have  threatened  to 
shake  off  their  ancient  subjection  under  the  Coptic  Patriarch. 
The  Government  has  approached  the  Armenians  and  the  Jacobites 
with  a  view  of  getting  bishops  ordained  by  them  ;  stranger  still, 
lately  they  seem  to  accept  the  advances  of  Orthodox  Russia  not 
unwillingly.1  However,  a  schism  from  the  Copts  has  not  yet 
happened.  Among  the  holy  men  of  Egypt  there  is  no  undue 
ambition  for  the  honour  of  being  Abuna.  On  the  contrary,  they 
do  all  they  can  to  avoid  it.  In  the  past  we  hear  of  a  monk  being 
caught,  ordained  by  force,  and  carried  off  to  Abyssinia  under  a 
strong  guard.  The  reason  of  this  is  that  Abuna  never  sees  his 
fatherland  again.  He  must  end  his  days  an  exile  in  what,  even 
to  a  Copt,  is  a  barbarous  land.  The  flesh-pots  of  Egypt  may  not 
seem  very  attractive  to  us  (in  the  case  of  a  Coptic  monk),  but 
they  seem  more  desirable  to  them  than  exile  in  Gondar.  One  of 
the  many  disadvantages  of  this  system  is  the  long  period  of  sedes 
vacans.  It  used  to  take  about  two  years  after  the  death  of  one 
Metropolitan  before  his  successor  entered  the  capital.2  The  new 
Primate  is  received  with  great  pomp  when  he  enters  the  country, 
and  is  escorted  by  the  king,  nobles,  clergy  and  soldiers  to  the 
palace  where  he  is  to  reside.  Umbrellas  form  a  great  feature 
of  Abyssinian  processions.  Abuna  alone  has  the  right  to  one 
of  cloth  of  gold  held  over  him.  He  alone  crowns  the  Negus, 
administers  the  sacrament  of  Holy  Orders  to  bishops,  priests  and 
deacons,3  consecrates  churches  and  altars,  and  rules    all    the 

1  Stranger  because  the  Armenians  and  Jacobites  are  fellow  Mono- 
physites.  But  communion  with  the  Orthodox  would  mean  a  change  of 
religion.  It  would  be  very  interesting  if,  after  all  this  trouble  for  fifteen 
hundred  years,  a  whole  Monophysite  Church  accepted  Chalcedon,  because 
the  Copts  will  not  give  them  a  small  convent  in  Jerusalem. 

2  Renaudot  :  Lit.  Orient.  Coll.  i.  418.  When  at  last  he  arrives  Abuna 
has  to  learn  two  foreign  languages. 

3  This  seems  strange  ;  but  all  authors  seem  to  agree  that  no  other  bishop 
is  allowed  to  ordain  even  priests  and  deacons  {e.g.  Gondal  :  Le  Chris- 
tianisme  an  pays  de  Menelik,  p.  18).  If  so,  one  may  ask  what  is  the  good 
of  them.  But  I  suspect  that  this  idea  comes  from  the  frequent  periods 
in  which  Abuna  was  the  only  bishop  in  Abyssinia.  Now  that  he  has 
suffragans  (p.  311),  I  think  that  they  may  ordain  their  priests  and  deacons, 
as  do[Coptic  bishops. 


310        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Ethiopic  Church  under  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandra.     The  Patri- 
arch treats  him  just  like  his   other   Metropolitans,  sends   him 


FIG.   IO. THE  ABYSSINIAN  PRIMATE,  ABUNA  MATEWOS. 


Paschal  letters,  as  to  the  others,  and  considers  Abyssinia  simply 
as  one  more  province  of  his  patriarchate.1  Abuna  is  never  very 
popular  among  his  people.  He  is  a  foreigner  ;  the  language, 
liturgy,  customs  are  strange  to  him.  We  said  that  he  can  ordain 
other  bishops.  There  is  some  complication  about  this.  The  old 
law  exists  still  in  theory  ;  he  may  ordain  not  more  than  seven 
suffragans  (p.  300,  n.  1).  But  constantly  it  transpires  that  there  are 
no  suffragans  at  all ;  so  that  some  writers  state  as  a  general  fact 

1  Renaudot :   loc.  cit.  i.  419. 


THE  ABYSSINIAN  CHURCH  311 

that  Abuna  is  the  only  bishop  in  Abyssinia.1  Certainly  in  the 
past  he  has  ordained  suffragans,  and  has  wanted  to  ordain  twelve. 
Now  he  has  suffragans,  but  does  not  ordain  them.  The  Coptic 
Patriarch  has  succeeded  in  applying  the  rule  about  Abuna  to  other 
Abyssinian  bishops  too,  or  has  enforced  the  general  principle  that 
he  alone  ordains  all  bishops  of  his  patriarchate.  So  the  modern 
practice  is  that  all  bishops  in  Abyssinia  are  Coptic  monks  ordained 
by  the  Patriarch.  I  believe  I  am  right  in  saying  that  the  present 
Primate 2  has  two  suffragans,  Peter  and  Luke.3  Abyssinian 
institutions,  laws,  faith  and  arrangements  generally  are  those  of 
the  Copts,  with  local  variety.  In  order  not  to  say  the  same  thing 
twice  over,  we  will  here  assume  that  everything  corresponds  to 
Coptic  use,  with  the  following  exceptions. 

The  priests  are  even  more  illiterate  than  those  of  Egypt.  They 
are  ordained  in  great  numbers  without  any  kind  of  training. 
Lobo's  account  of  an  ordination  in  the  16th  century  is  interesting. 
He  quotes  from  Fr.  Alvarez,  of  the  Portuguese  mission.  Abuna 
rode  up  on  a  mule  and  made  a  speech  in  Arabic,4  to  the  effect  that 
if,  among  those  to  be  ordained,  anyone  were  present  who  had  been 
twice  married,  he  must  withdraw,  under  pain  of  excommunication. 
Hereupon  he  got  off  his  mule  and  sat  by  a  white  tent  specially 
prepared  for  him.  Alvarez  says  that  2356  men  were  waiting  to 
be  ordained.5  Meanwhile  some  priests  arranged  these  in  rows, 
and  examined  them  by  giving  to  each  a  book  to  read.  They 
touched  those  whom  they  approved  on  the  arm  and  made  them 
step  forward.  After  this  examination  Abuna  went  into  the  tent, 
and  the  candidates  were  admitted,  one  by  one,  before  him. 
Abuna  laid  his  hand  on  each  one's  head,  said  several  prayers,  and 
blessed  him  repeatedly  with  his  little  bronze  cross.  Then  followed 
the  liturgy,  at  which  the  newly  ordained  priests  received  Com- 
munion from  Abuna.6    Deacons  are  boys  who  can  just  read.    The 

1  So  Gondal :  op.  cit.  p.  21  ;  Silbernagl  :  Verfassung,  u.s.w.  p.  295  ; 
Lobo  :    Voyage  hist.  p.  353. 

2  He  is  Matthew  :   Abuna  Matewos,  aba  salama. 

3  I  know  nothing  more  about  either  Peter  or  Luke,  except  that  they  are 
Egyptian  monks,  ordained  at  Cairo. 

4  Presumably  the  only  language  he  knew  ;  I  suppose  no  one  present  but 
Alvarez  could  understand  him. 

5  Apparently  some  are  stark  naked. 

6  Lobo  :    Voyage  historique  d'Abyssinie,  pp.  341-342. 


312        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

kom5s  1  corresponds  to  a  Coptic  kummus  (p.  257).  The  Dabtara 
is  a  learned  man  who  instructs  the  clergy,  teaches  them  their 
duties,  supervises  churches,  and  so  on  ;  but  apparently  is  him- 
self a  layman.2  There  is  an  enormous  number  of  monks.  As 
their  founder  they  honour  St.  Takla  Haimanot,  a  very  popular 
Ethiopic  saint,  who  is  said  to  have  introduced,  or  reorganized, 
the  angelic  life  about  the  year  620.  His  name  means  "  Plant  of 
life."  His  feast  is  December  24.  So  in  their  diptychs  for  the 
dead,  they  pray  always  :  "  Remember,  O  Lord,  the  soul  of  thy 
servant,  our  father  Takla  Haimanot,  and  all  his  companions." 
He  was  the  first  Ttshage.3  The  organized  monks,  who  take  the 
usual  vows  (like  Coptic  monks),  live  in  monasteries  under  a 
komos.  The  head  of  all  of  them  is  the  Ttshage,  who  lives  at 
Gondar,  and  is  the  second  greatest  ecclesiastical  person  in  the 
land.  The  Ttshage,  being  a  native,  is  more  popular,  and  is  a 
formidable  rival  to  Abuna.  There  are  also  many  hermits, 
wandering  holy  men  who  beg,  people  possessed  by  various  spirits, 
and  monks  (of  a  kind)  who  continue  to  live  with  their  families, 
are  not  celibate,  but  wear  a  religious  dress  and  practise  certain 
special  devotions.  There  are  nuns  in  convents.4  Monks  wear 
a  tunic,  a  belt,  a  great  cloak  and  a  hood.5  The  secular  priests 
and  bishops  dress  much  as  do  the  Copts,  except  that  a  kale- 
maukion  seems  common.6 

6.  Rites  and  Ceremonies 

There  is  an  enormous  number  of  churches  all  over  the  country, 
many  more  than  are  needed.7  The  Abyssinian  church  is,  appar- 
ently always,  a  round  building  with  the  sanctuary  in  the  middle. 

1  A  dignitary  called  Alaka  seems  to  be  the  same  as  a  komos. 

2  Ludolf  (Hist.  Aeth.  L.  iii.  c.  vii.  §§  26-29)  calls  him  "  Canonicus." 
More  about  the  hierarchy  will  be  found  there,  c.  vii. 

3  Ludolf  :  Hist.  Aeth.  L.  iii.  c.  iii.  §§  15-28  ;   and  his  Comment,  p.  402. 

4  Further  information  about  the  angelic  life  in  Ethiopia  will  be  found  in 
Ludolf  :  Hist.  Aeth.  L.  iii.  c.  iii.,  and  Lobo  :    Voyage  hist.  pp.  356-357. 

5  There  seems  to  be  no  principle  as  to  colour,  and  not  much  as  to  shape 
or  material.  The  Abyssinian  monks  I  saw  in  Jerusalem  were  dressed  in 
very  dirty  rusty  black.  Curzon  saw  them  in  bright  yellow  clothes  of 
leather  (Monasteries  of  the  Levant,  p.  106). 

6  Most  of  those  I  have  seen  were  very  dirty,  greasy  and  unpleasant. 

7  I  have  been  told  that  there  are  over  six  thousand  churches  in  Abyssinia. 


THE  ABYSSINIAN  CHURCH 


3i3 


This  appears  to  be  founded  on  the  same  illusion  as  to  the  shape  of 
Solomon's  temple  as  produced  our  round  Templar  churches  in 


FIG.  II. THE  ABYSSINIAN  MONASTERY  BY  THE  ANASTASIS  AT  JERUSALEM. 


Europe.  In  Abyssinia  itself  the  churches,  at  least  in  country 
districts,  are  said  to  be  very  poor  structures — a  round  mud  wall 
and  thatched  roof.  I  examined  with  some  care  the  big  church 
they  built  lately  outside  Jerusalem.1  Dull  and  ugly  as  this 
church  is,  it  has  an  interest,  since  it  reproduces  the  plan  of  their 
churches  at  home  on  a  larger  scale.     It  is  built  of  stone,  quite 

1  North-west,  a  mile  or  so  from  the  walls,  beyond  the  Russian  pilgrims' 
hospice.  Its  title  is  "  Church  of  Paradise."  Besides  this  church  (and  the 
convent  they  hope  to  take  from  the  Copts,  p.  304)  the  Abyssinians  have  in 
Jerusalem  a  monastery  with  a  great  court  (in  which  is  the  very  same  olive- 
tree  where  Abraham  found  the  ram),  east  of  the  Anastasis  (see  fig.  11). 
Next  to  it  is  the  Coptic  monastery  Dair  asSultan  (which  the  Abyssinians 
claim).  In  the  Anastasis  they  have  one  small  chapel.  The  Abyssinian 
and  Coptic  monks  quarrel  very  badly  ;  the  Copts  (and  Armenians)  used 
to  lock  the  Abyssinians  in  at  night ;  would  not  let  them  get  to  their  chapel, 
and  so  on. 


3i4        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

round,  with  a  dome.  Over  the  door  is  sculptured  their  crowned 
lion.  Within  there  is  a  broad  passage  around  the  central  choir 
and  sanctuary.  This  has  a  wall  all  round  it  up  to  the  roof,  and 
beyond,  for  it  rises  above  the  outer  wall  and  becomes  the  drum 
of  the  dome.  The  central  space  is  divided  by  a  straight  screen 
across  it  into  choir  and  sanctuary.  The  arrangement  of  the  altar, 
vessels,  and  so  on,  is  sufficiently  Coptic  to  justify  a  reference  in 
general  to  that  use  (pp.  267-270).  They  have,  of  course,  no  statues, 
but  numbers  of  paintings  of  our  Lord  and  of  saints.  All  the 
Abyssinian  paintings  I  have  seen  are  exceedingly  rude,  without 
artistic  merit  of  any  kind,1  but  very  curious  and  interesting.2 

The  ark  (tabot)  on  every  Ethiopic  altar  has  puzzled  many 
people.3  The  Abyssinians  say  that  the  Queen  of  Sheba  brought 
the  ark  of  the  Covenant  back  with  her  to  Aksum,  where  it  is  kept 
in  the  Metropolitan  church.4  Every  other  church  has  a  tabot, 
a  copy  of  the  one  at  Aksum.  They  pay  enormous  reverence  to 
the  tabot.  Their  liturgy  contains  a  special  prayer  for  blessing 
it ; 5  they  carry  it  in  processions,  bless  with  it,  bow  down  before  it. 
What  then,  exactly,  is  this  ark  ?  It  is  tempting  to  suppose  that 
it  must  be  a  vessel  containing  the  Holy  Eucharist,  as  Neale 
thinks.6  It  seems,  however,  that  it  is  not  so.  The  Abyssinians 
have,  at  least  now,  no  reservation  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  (cf.  p.  286) . 
The  real  explanation  is  a  simple  one.  The  tabot  is  the  Coptic 
pitote,  a  box,  otherwise  empty,  in   which  the   chalice  stands 

1  Coptic  paintings  are  rude  too,  in  the  sense  of  showing  very  na'ive  draw- 
ing and  ignorance  of  all  the  usual  rules  ;  but  the  older  ones  have  great 
artistic  beauty.  I  do  not  think  the  most  enthusiastic  archaeologist  could 
find  any  beauty  at  all  in  Abyssinian  painting,  though  much  of  their  orna- 
ment form  (crosses,  geometric  patterns,  and  so  on)  shows  a  sense  of  design 
and  Coptic  influence. 

2  Some  curious  Abyssinian  paintings,  ornaments  and  church  vessels 
(brought  back  by  the  expedition  of  1867),  may  be  seen  in  the  British 
Museum  (Christian  Room,  wall-cases  16-18).  But  the  guide  to  this  room 
(by  Mr.  C.  H.  Read)  contains  many  bad  blunders,  including  the  amazing 
statement  that  Ge'z  is  written  from  right  to  left  (p.  96). 

3  Renaudot :  Liturg.  Orient.  Coll.  i.  498  ;  Neale  :  Holy  Eastern  Church, 
Gen.  Introd.  i.  185-186. 

4  For  this  legend  see  Ludolf  :  Hist.  Aethiop.  L.  ii.  cap.  iii.  §  8.  For  the 
tabot  in  other  churches,  ib.  L.  iii.  c.  vi.  §  62.  The  tabot  at  Aksum  is 
magnificent,  covered  with  gold  and  jewels.  Abu  Salih  describes  it  (Churches 
and  Monasteries,  pp.  287-288). 

5  Renaudot :   loc.  cit.  i.  474.  6  hoc.  cit.  i.  186. 


THE  ABYSSINIAN  CHURCH  315 

during  the  liturgy  (pp.  271,  282).  But  it  may  also  contain  the 
wooden  altar-board  (p.  270,  called  tablith  in  Arabic),  or  be  joined 
to  this  (stand  on  it).  The  reverence,  probably,  was  originally 
addressed  to  the  altar-board.  The  resemblance  of  the  two  names 
(tablith  and  tabot x) ,  the  box-like  form  of  the  pitote,  and  the  usual 
Judaizing  tendency  of  Abyssinian  Christianity  (p.  319)  may  be  the 
origin  of  the  name  tabot,  of  the  legend  connecting  it  with  the 
Jewish  ark,  and  of  the  transference  of  reverence  from  the  board  to 
the  box.  At  any  rate,  it  seems  clear  that  the  modern  tabot  contains 
nothing  at  all,  that  it  just  stands  on  the  altar,  and  is  used  in  the 
liturgy  as  by  the  Copts.2 

The  official  vestments  of  the  Abyssinian  rite  are  the  same  as 
those  of  the  Copts  (pp.  272-274) ;  like  the  Copts,  they  use  only 
some  of  these  (p.  274)  on  most  occasions.  Abuna  has  a  fine  triple 
crown,  a  little  hand  cross  with  which  to  bless,  and  any  number 
of  orders  and  decorations.  All  their  services  are  in  Ge'z.  Ex- 
cept "  Amen,"  "  Haleluya,"  and  "  Kiralayeson,"  they  have  no 
mixture  of  any  foreign  language  ;  nor  do  they  read  the  lessons  in 
the  vulgar  tongue.  Ge'z  has  much  the  same  relation  to  the  vulgar 
tongue  (Amharic,  etc.)  as  Old  Slavonic  to  Russian.  It  is  said 
that  even  the  clergy  know  but  little  of  the  classical  language  ;  no 
doubt  they  (and  the  people  too)  know  by  heart  what  the  prayers 
mean.  In  general,  all  their  services  are  based  on  those  of  the 
Copts.  In  Abyssinia  the  Coptic  rite  translated,  is  used,  with 
considerable  local  variations.  Except  the  holy  liturgy,  their 
books  have  not  yet  been  printed,  hardly  at  all  studied.3  We 
must  imagine  them  as  following  the  main  lines  of  the  Coptic 
books,  with  local  differences.  The  order  of  the  administering  of 
Sacraments  is  also  Coptic  in  essence.     The  holy  liturgy  has  been 

1  Which  is  the  usual  name  for  the  old  Ark  of  the  Covenant. 

2  I  tried,  without  success,  to  make  an  Abyssinian  priest  open  the  tabot, 
or  tell  me  what  is  in  it.  I  am  persuaded  that  it  is  empty.  It  is,  of  course, 
quite  possible  that  when  they  had  Reservation  they  used  the  tabot  and 
that  it  has  kept  the  reverence  once  meant  for  what  it  contained. 

3  The  Abyssinian  Theotokia  were  published  by  Dr.  Fries  ( Wedase  Marjam, 
Leipzig,  1892)  and  by  I.  Guidi  (Wedase  Marjam,  Rome,  1900).  Trumpp 
published  their  Baptism  rite  (Das  Taufbuch  der  athiopischen  Kirche,  Munich, 
1878).  Quotations  from  the  Theotokia  will  be  found  in  H.  Goussen  : 
Aphorismen  iiber  die  Verehrung  der  hi.  Jungfrau  in  den  altorient.  Kirchen 
(Paderborn,  1903). 


316        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

edited  and  translated  several  times.1  The  book  which  contains 
it  is  called  Kedda.se  (their  name  for  the  liturgy) .  They  have  an 
unchanging  Ordo  communis  (the  Pro-anaphoral  part,  Intercession 
and  Post-Communion  prayers),  which  they  ascribe  to  Basil  of 
Antioch  ;  to  this  is  normally  joined  the  "  Anaphora  of  all  the 
Apostles/'  The  Ordo  communis  is  really  a  version  of  the  Alex- 
andrine St.  Mark  ;  the  Anaphora  of  the  Apostles  is  an  independent 
one,  from  the  old  Egyptian  Church  Order.2  The  original  form  had 
no  Sanctus.  This  has  been  added,  awkwardly,  later.  They 
also  have  a  number  of  alternate  anaphoras,  which  may  be  sub- 
stituted for  that  of  the  Apostles.  That  of  "  Our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  "  3  contains  prayers  from  the  "  Testament  of  our  Lord  "  4 
in  place  of  the  normal  ones.  Those  of  "  Our  Lady  Mary,  by 
Kyriakos  of  Behnsa,"  5  of  "  Saint  Dioscor,"  6  of  "  St.  John  Chry- 
sostom,"  7  have  also  been  published.  Brightman  gives  the  titles 
of  eleven  others,  not  yet  printed.8  These  are  ascribed  to  St. 
John  the  Evangelist,  St.  James,  St.  Gregory  the  Armenian,  the 
"  318  Orthodox  "  (of  Nicaea),  and  so  on.  One  (St.  Basil)  is 
merely  a  version  of  the  Coptic  St.  Basil.  Many  of  them  are  not 
complete  anaphoras,  but  fragments,  which  may  be  substituted  for 
the  corresponding  parts  of  the  Apostles'  liturgy.  They  seem  to 
be  used  only  on  rare  occasions,  some  of  them  not  at  all. 

The  normal  rite,  with  the  Apostles'  Anaphora,  as  we  have  said, 
follows  the  lines  of  the  St.  Mark  Liturgy.  The  instruments  and 
vessels  are  prepared  ;  the  celebrant  goes  to  pay  reverence  to  the 
tabot,  which  he  covers  with  a  veil.     The  bread  and  wine  are  made 

1  Namely  the  usual  Anaphora  (of  all  the  Apostles)  and  four  others  ; 
see  below. 

2  The  immediate  source  is  the  Ethiopic  Church  Order,  a  translation  (with 
variants)  of  the  other.  For  the  nature  and  relation  of  these  documents 
see  Funk  :  Das  Testament  unseres  Herrn  u.  die  Verwandten  Schriften  (Mainz, 
1901)  ;  A.  J.  Maclean  :    The  Ancient  Church  Orders  (Cambridge,  1910). 

a  In  Petrus  Ethyops :  T estamentum  nouum  (Rome,  1548),  and  Ludolf : 
Comm.  ad  suam  hist,  csthiop.  (Frankfurt,  1691,  pp.  341-345). 

4  See  Funk  :   op.  cit.  5  petrus  Ethyops  :   op.  cit. 

6  In  Ludolf  :  Lexicon  cBthiopicum  (London,  1661  ;  appendix),  and  Lebrun  : 
Explication  .   .   .  dela  messe  (Paris,  1716-1726),  iv.  564-579. 

7  In  Dillmann  :  Chrestomathia  csthiopica  (Leipzig,  1866),  51-56.  These 
are  all  translated  in  Rodwell  :  Ethiopic  Liturgies  ami  Hymns  (London, 
1864). 

8  Eastern  Liturgies,  p.  lxxiv ;  cf.  Ludolf  :    Comment,  pp.  340-341. 


THE  ABYSSINIAN  CHURCH  317 

ready,  and  offered.  During  the  Enarxis  is  a  long  litany  by  the 
deacon,  with  answer  :  "  Kiralayeson  "  to  each  petition.  This 
litany  is  taken  from  the  "  Testament  of  our  Lord,"  and  is  an 
Ethiopic  peculiarity,  not  in  the  Coptic  rite.  The  Liturgy  of  the 
Catechumens  begins  with  a  general  incensing  (of  which  the  tabot 
has  a  special  share).  There  are  four  lessons,  with  Graduals  and 
the  Monophysite  Trisagion,  as  by  the  Copts  (p.  190).  The  Cate- 
chumens are  dismissed  by  a  special  form  (cf.  p.  283).  Then 
follow  the  Creed,  washing  of  hands,  kiss  of  peace.  "  Sursum 
corda  "  1  follows,  and  the  Intercession  2  in  the  normal  Egyptian 
place,  before  the  consecration.  The  people  sing  the  Sanctus  ; 
then  come  the  words  of  Institution  and  Epiklesis,  the  Lord's 
Prayer,  Intinction  (as  p.  285),  and  Communion  (apparently  always 
in  separate  kinds,  the  deacon  bringing  the  chalice) .  At  the  end  are 
a  last  thanksgiving,  the  Lord's  Prayer  again,  and  the  dismissal.3 
There  is  a  peculiarity  about  the  words  of  Institution  which  has 
caused  some  discussion.  The  words  for  the  bread  are:  "Take, 
eat,  this  bread  is  my  body,  which  is  broken  for  you  for  forgiveness 
of  sins,"  4  instead  of  "  This  is  my  body."  Theologians  have 
argued  whether  such  a  form  be  valid.  It  is  further  discussed 
whether,  in  view  of  the  incredible  carelessness  with  which  they 
ordain,  their  orders  can  be  admitted  as  certainly  valid.  This 
would  only  affect  priests  and  deacons.  As  long  as  their  bishops 
are  ordained  by  the  Coptic  Patriarch,  they  at  least  are  really 
bishops. 

The  Ethiopic  Calendar  has  many  peculiarities.  It  follows  the 
Era  of  the  Martyrs  and  is  counted  as  by  the  Copts  (p.  286)  .5 
They  also  have  the  Coptic  fasts  (p.  287).°     But  they  have  their 

1  Here  begins  the  Anaphora  of  all  the  Apostles. 

2  In  it  they  pray  for  Abuna  and  the  Coptic  Patriarch  (Brightman  : 
Eastern  Liturgies,  228).  In  the  deacon's  litany  they  pray  for  these  two  and 
the  king  (ib.  206-207). 

3  Brightman  :   Eastern  Liturgies,  194-244.  4  Ib.  232. 

5  They  group  four  years  under  the  patronage  of  each  of  the  four  Evan- 
gelists. St.  Luke  always  has  the  leap  year.  Thus  "  Matthew  "  was  their 
1901  (our  September  11,  1908-September  io,  1909),  "Mark"  1902  (1909- 
1910),  "  Luke  "  1903  (1910-1911),  "  John  "  1904  (1911-1912).  Further 
information  about  the  Abyssinian  reckoning  will  be  found  in  M.  Chaine  : 
Grammaire  ethiopienne  (op.  cit.),  pp.  92-95. 

6  Ludolf  :   Hist.  Aeth.  L.  iii.  c.  vi.  §  90. 


318        THE  LESSER   EASTERN  CHURCHES 

own  feasts,  very  strange  ones.  They  have  the  same  feast  over 
and  over  again  during  the  year.  Our  Lord's  birth  is  kept  once 
a  month  (except  March)  on  the  24th  or  25th.  Our  Lady,  St. 
Michael,1  and  "  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob "  (one  feast)  also 
once  a  month.  Their  own  saints,  kings,  martyrs  and  monks 
occur  ;  but  not  one  Metropolitan  (since  Abuna  is  an  unpopular 
foreigner).  They  have  very  strange  legends  of  their  saints  ;  on 
June  25  they  keep  Saint  Pontius  Pilate,  of  all  people,  and  his 
wife  Procla.2  They  have  music  in  their  churches,  bells,  rattles 
like  the  old  sistrum,  and  especially  big  drums.  To  these  the 
priests  dance  before  the  ark,  as  did  David.  They  sing  wild 
melodies,  and  the  women  make  the  strange  shrill  cries  which  one 
hears  all  over  the  East,  either  for  rejoicing  or  mourning. 


7.  Ethiopic  Faith  and  Customs — Judaism 

The  Abyssinian  Church  is  Monophysite  ;  it  agrees  in  all  points 
with  the  Copts.  We  need  not  then  discuss  these  again.  But  it 
has  some  further  peculiarities  of  its  own.  There  are  vehement 
discussions  and  three  schools  3  concerning  the  hypostatic  union 
and  the  birth  of  Christ.  The  normal  Monophysites  believe  that 
our  Lord  was  born  of  the  Father  from  eternity,  born  of  his  mother 
in  time,  when  he  united,  absorbed  a  human  nature  into  his 
Divinity.  This  is  the  recognized  and  official  school,  to  which 
Abuna  and  most  of  the  clergy  belong.  A  second  party  teaches 
that  the  union  of  Christ's  humanity  and  Divinity  into  one  nature 
(understood  in  the  usual  Monophysite  sense)  took  place  when  he 
received  the  unction  of  the  Holy  Ghost  at  his  baptism ;  so  they 
count  this  as  a  third  birth,  the  birth  of  our  Lord's  one  theandric 
nature.  A  third  school  maintains  that,  as  son  of  Mary,  Christ 
was  man  only ;  later  God  infused  into  him  Divinity,  without 
changing  his  human  nature.     Now,  as  far  as  the  doctrine  of  two 

1  St.  Michael  is  the  national  patron  of  Abyssinia. 

2  Ludolf  :  Comment,  p.  433.  The  wife  because  of  her  dream ;  Pilate 
because  he  said  he  was  innocent.  The  Byzantine  rite  has  St.  Procla  (alone), 
on  October  27.  The  whole  Calendar  is  given  in  Ludolf  :  ad  suam.  hist.  ceth. 
Commentarius,  pp.  389-427,  with  notes. 

3  I  do  not  call  them  sects,  because  they  are  all  in  communion  with  each 
other. 


THE  ABYSSINIAN  CHURCH  319 

perfect  natures  goes  this  is  Catholic ;  indeed,  in  the  idea  of  a  later 
infusion  of  Divinity,  it  exceeds  on  the  other  side  and  takes  up  an 
idea  of  Nestorius  (p.  70) — strange  to  find  this  among  professed 
Monophysites.1  Among  the  logical  Monophysites  there  are  many 
who  carry  that  heresy  to  the  length  of  paying  too  great  reverence 
to  the  Blessed  Virgin,  making  her  divine.  This  may  follow  from 
Monophysite  premises.  For,  if  our  Lord  had  only  one  Divine 
nature,  his  mother  would  be  not  only  mother  of  God,  but  mother 
of  his  Divinity.  If  she  gave  him  a  Divine  nature  she  must  have 
had  it  herself.  So  among  Abyssinians  there  is  a  real  exaggeration 
of  honour  paid  to  her,  culminating  in  adoration,  in  the  idea  that 
she  too  died  for  our  sins,  is  our  redeemer,  that  all  grace  can  only 
come  through  (or  even  from)  her.  Certainly  in  no  part  of  the 
Christian  world  does  devotion  to  our  Lady  reach  such  a  point  as 
in  Abyssinia.  A  curious  point  is  that,  among  an  unlettered  and 
ignorant  people,  these  theological  quarrels  are  so  acute  that  when 
the  last  king,  the  usurper  John,  marched  against  Shoa,  to  inflame 
his  soldiers  he  used  as  a  chief  argument  that  his  enemies  taught 
the  threefold  birth  of  Christ. 

But  the  most  conspicuous  characteristic  of  the  Abyssinian 
Church  is  its  Judaism.  However  this  may  be  explained,  the  fact 
is  undeniable  and  very  remarkable.  It  is  unique  in  Christendom. 
We  need  not  attach  much  weight  to  the  practice  of  circumcision  ; 
this  is  common  throughout  the  East.  The  Abyssinians  probably 
took  it  from  the  Copts  ;  like  the  Copts  they  see  no  religious  idea 
in  it  (p.  279).  But  they  keep  Saturday  holy,  as  well  as  Sunday. 
On  both  days  equally  they  celebrate  the  Holy  Eucharist  and  rest 
from  work.  They  keep  the  Jewish  law  of  food,  abstain  from 
Judaically  unclean  meats,  eat  only  of  that  which  chews  the  cud 
and  divides  the  hoof.  And  there  is  their  legend  about  the  Ark 
of  the  Covenant  at  Aksum,  and  the  enormous  reverence  they  pay 
to  it  and  to  the  tabot  in  every  church. 

A  common  explanation  of  this  feature  is  that  they  were  origin- 
ally converted  Jews,  and  have  kept  much  of  what  they  then 

1  It  is  in  this  third  school  that  the  Russians,  not  without  reason,  see  hope 
of  making  the  Abyssinians  Orthodox.  So  they  favour  it,  and  wish  it  to 
spread.  But  they  must  take  care  lest,  in  persuading  their  new  friends  to 
accept  Chalcedon,  they  make  them  contradict  Ephesus. 


320        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

practised  since  they  became  Christians.  This  is  possible,  but 
there  is  no  direct  evidence  that  they  ever  were  Jews  (p.  294). 
Nor  do  I  think  this  explanation  necessary.  A  backward  and 
almost  isolated  people,  who  receive  the  Old  Testament  as  the 
word  of  God,  an  Eastern  people  surrounded  (like  the  Jews)  by 
unbelievers,  to  whom  much  of  the  Mosaic  Law  must  seem  natural, 
might  easily  evolve  the  idea  that  it  applies  to  them  too.  They 
know  nothing  of  the  anti- Jewish  struggle  which  forms  a  chapter 
in  our  early  Church  history,  and  they  set  great  store  by  King 
Solomon  and  the  Queen  of  Sheba  ;  the  Negus  thinks  the  Kings  of 
Israel  his  own  glorious  ancestors  (p.  308).  I  doubt  if  we  need 
look  further  than  this  for  the  origin  of  their  Judaizing  practices. 
But  they  count  St.  Paul  (and  Hebrews)  among  the  canonical 
books  ;  they  read  St.  Paul  in  their  liturgy.  Apparently  in 
Ethiopia,  as  in  some  other  places,  he  has  not  succeeded  in  making 
himself  understood. 

The  Abyssinian  Bible  contains  many  strange  books,  more  than 
that  of  the  Copts  (p.  265).  Besides  our  canonical  books,  it  has  the 
Book  of  Enoch  x  (quoted  in  Jud.  14-15),  the  Book  of  Jubilees, 
fourth  Book  of  Esdras,  Ascension  of  Isaias,2  Epistle  of  Jeremias, 
Apocalypse  of  Baruch,  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  Apostolic 
Constitutions  and  Canons,  Epistles  of  Clement  and  others.3 

It  is  often  said  that  polygamy  is  allowed  in  Abyssinia.  This  is 
not  true  and  not  just  to  the  national  Church.  She  has  exactly 
the  same  law  of  monogamy  as  have  all  Christians.  No  man  can 
marry  more  than  one  wife  at  a  time.     What  does  happen  is  that 

1  This  is  the  most  famous  Ethiopic  Apocryphum.  Bruce  brought  a 
copy  of  it  from  Abyssinia  in  1773  (Fleming  :  Das  Buck  Henoch,  Leipzig, 
1902  ;   R.  H.  Charles  :    The  Book  of  Enoch,  Oxford,  1893). 

2  Dillmann  :   Ascensio  I  sales  (Leipzig,  1877). 

3  There  is  considerable  divergence  as  to  which  books  exactly  are,  or  are 
not,  canonical.  They  treat  collections  of  Fathers,  Decrees  of  General 
Councils,  even  civil  laws,  with  enormous  reverence,  and  often  write  them  in 
the  same  book  as  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  Perhaps  it  is  best  to  say 
that  Copts  and  Abyssinians  have  not  yet  arrived  at  a  clear  idea  of  inspired 
Scripture  as  a  distinct  category,  just  as  they  are  vague  as  to  the  specific 
idea  of  a  Sacrament  (see  p.  262).  Petrus  Ethyops  (p.  316,  n.  3)  published  the 
New  Testament  (Rome,  1548),  Ludolf  the  Psalter  (Frankfurt,  1701)  ; 
other  books  have  been  printed  by  various  people.  All  these  are  now  super- 
seded by  Dillmann's  great  edition  of  the  whole  Ethiopic  Bible — hitherto 
three  volumes  are  published  (Leipzig-Berlin,  185 3-1 894). 


THE   ABYSSINIAN   CHURCH  321 

before  marriage  a  great  number  of  men  live  with  several  ladies, 
with  whom  they  make  a  temporary  arrangement.  This  seems  to 
be  exceedingly  common,  tolerated  by  public  opinion,  almost  a 
recognized  institution.  But  it  is  not  marriage  ;  no  priest  has 
anything  to  do  with  the  bargain  for  mutual  sin,  no  man  living  in 
such  a  way  can  go  to  Confession  or  receive  Communion.  It 
appears  that  even  lax  public  opinion  looks  upon  marriage  as  much 
more  respectable.  The  accusation  of  Abyssinian  polygamy  then 
means  that  many  young  men  live  disorderly  lives — the  same 
might  be  said  of  London  ;  that  public  opinion  is  lax — in  England 
it  is  not  exactly  severe  ;  that  the  Church  should  do  more  to  put 
down  rampant  sin — we  might  do  more  in  Europe  too. 

However,  all  travellers  seem  to  agree  that  Christianity  in 
Abyssinia  is  in  a  very  low  state.  The  people  are  at  best  only  half 
civilized,  the  clergy  are  almost  as  illiterate  as  the  laity.  Some 
accusations  I  very  much  doubt.  When  I  see  that  a  Protestant 
traveller  says  that  the  priests  take  money  to  forgive  sins,  I 
remember  that  many  of  them  think  that  Catholics  do  so.  In- 
veighing against  superstitions,  ignorance,  and  so  on  leaves  us  cold 
when  we  reflect  that  they  often  say  much  the  same  of  us.  For  if 
a  man  can  remain  as  grossly  ignorant  of  an  institution  at  his  very 
door  as  many  well-meaning  Protestants  are  of  us,  how  shall  he 
understand  Ethiopia  ?  But  if  it  be  true  that  Abyssinians  adore 
our  Lady  as  God,  believe  that  she  dwells  in  sacred  trees,  holy 
wells  and  high  places,  this  is  very  bad.  They  appear  to  have  an 
extensive  demonology ;  there  are  were-wolves,  devil-serpents  and 
devil-hyaenas.  There  is  a  special  lady-devil  who  eats  small 
children.  These  are  smoked  out  with  fire  and  conjured  away 
with  amulets  containing  holy  words.  I  can  certify  that  all  the 
Ethiopians  I  have  seen,  and  their  churches,  are  appallingly  dirty. 
They  anoint  their  black  faces  with  oil,  which  runs  down  even  to 
the  hem  of  their  garment.  But  it  would  be  absurd  to  mind  that. 
If  a  man  is  an  African  he  is  an  African.  In  any  case  they  are 
Christians.1     Coram  illo  procident  Aethiopes. 

1  The  proud  mark  of  an  Abyssinian  Christian  is  the  blue  cord  he  wears 
always  round  his  neck  ;  on  it  are  strung  crosses,  amulets,  toothpicks, 
scratchers,  and  so  on.  He  also  carries  in  his  belt  two  or  three  pistols,  and 
perhaps  five  daggers.     At  his  side  hang  a  broadsword  and  a  rapier  ;   a  gun 

21 


322        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Summary 

The  kingdom  of  Abyssinia  in  the  middle  of  East  Africa  is 
Christian.  The  gospel  was  first  preached  here  by  St.  Frumentius 
and  St.  Aedesius.  From  Frumentius  descends  the  line  of  Metro- 
politans of  Aksum,  called  Abiina.  The  Church  depends  on  that 
of  the  Copts,  is  under  the  Coptic  Patriarch,  and  shares  the  Coptic 
heresy.  Abiina  is  always  a  Coptic  monk,  ordained  in  Egypt. 
For  one  century  (roughly  1550-1650),  under  Portuguese  influence, 
it  was  Uniate.  The  Abyssinians  use  a  rite  based  on  that  of  the 
Copts,  in  the  old  form  of  their  language  (Ge'z).  Their  faith  and 
canon  law  are  Coptic,  with  variations  of  their  own.  They  are 
certainly  backward  in  civilization  and  are  said  to  have  remnants 
of  pagan  superstition.  They  judaize  in  many  points  and  pay 
great  reverence  to  an  ark  in  every  church,  made  on  the  model  of 
the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  which  they  keep  at  Aksum.  Their  king, 
Negush  Negashti,  is  the  Lion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  because  he 
descends  from  Solomon  and  the  Queen  of  Sheba.  In  any  case, 
surrounded  by  Islam,  he  upholds  the  name  of  Christ  in  his  wild 
mountains. 

is  slung  across  his  back,  and  he  carries  one  in  his  hand.  A  gentleman  of 
quality  is  followed  by  his  servants  who  carry  the  rest  of  his  weapons — 
several  more  guns  and  swords,  a  bayonet  or  two,  pistols  and  daggers. 


CHAPTER   X 

THE    JACOBITES 

The  Jacobites  are  the  Monophysites  of  Syria.  They  have  never 
been  more  than  a  comparatively  small,  poor  and  scattered  sect. 
They  never  succeeded  in  capturing  all  Syria,  as  their  co-religionists 
the  Copts  captured  all  Egypt.  Now,  especially,  they  are  a  very 
small  body  scattered  around  Diyarbakr,  with  colonies  in  most 
Syrian  towns.  In  religion  they  agree  with  the  Copts,  with  whom 
they  are  in  communion.  In  rite  they  are  quite  different.  They 
alone  keep,  in  the  Syriac  language,  the  old  rite  of  Antioch.  This 
is  perhaps  the  chief  importance  of  the  sect  to  students.1 

i.  The  Foundation  of  the  Jacobite  Church 

In  discussing  the  general  history  of  Monophysism  we  have  seen 
that  already  in  the  5th  century  the  Egyptian  party  (against 
Chalcedon)  made  many  converts,  expecially  monks,  in  Palestine 

1  For  all  Jacobite  history  the  chief  sources  are  the  Chronicle  of  Michael 
the  Syrian  (Michael  I,  Jacobite  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  1166-1199),  ed.  in 
Syriac  and  French  by  J.  B.  Chabot  (Paris,  4  vols.,  1899-1910),  and  Bar- 
hebraeus  (Gregory  Abu-lFarag  ibn  Harun,  called  Bar  'Ebraya),  Mafrian 
(f  1286)  :  Chronicle,  of  which  the  Ecclesiastical  history  has  been  edited  by 
J.  B.  Abbeloos  and  T.  J.  Lamy  :  Gregorii  Barhebrcsi  chronicon  ecclesias- 
ticum  (two  sections  in  three  volumes,  Louvain,  1 872-1 877,  Syriac  and  Latin). 
Barhebraeus  was  a  prolific  writer,  and  one  of  the  most  learned  men  the 
learned  little  sect  produced  (p.  330).  However,  a  comparison  shows  that 
he  took  most  of  the  matter  of  his  Chronicle  from  Michael.  Joseph  Simon 
Assemani  :  Bibliotheca  Orientalis,  vol.  ii.  :  De  Scriptoribus  Syris  Mono- 
physitis  (Rome,  1721),  with  a  Dissertatio  de  Monophysitis,  contains  a  mass 
of  material.     But  the  Dissertatio  is  not  paged. 

323 


324   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

and  Syria  (p.  183).  These  are  the  beginning  of  the  present 
Jacobite  Church.  At  first,  as  in  Egypt,  the  Monophysites  were 
rather  a  party  within  the  Church  than  a  separate  sect  (see  p.  216). 
They  did  not  set  up  rival  sees,  but  tried,  with  varying  success, 
to  capture  the  existing  ones.  In  Jerusalem  they  drove  out 
Juvenal,  set  up  a  Monophysite,  Theodosius,  in  452,  and  supported 
him  by  Monophysite  suffragans.  But  the  Government  soon  drove 
these  people  out.  At  Antioch  for  a  long  time  there  were  alternate 
vicissitudes  of  Monophysite  and  Chalcedonian  Patriarchs.  The 
great  leaders  of  the  heresy  in  Syria  got  temporary  possession  of 
the  see — Peter  the  Fuller  (471,  475),  Severus  (512-after  536). l 
At  last  Justinian  I  (527-565)  made  a  firm  stand  for  Chalcedon, 
expelled  all  Monophysite  bishops,  and  demanded  acceptance  of 
the  council  from  everyone.  The  Monophysites  lost  ground 
throughout  Syria.  It  seemed  as  if  the  sect  were  about  to  die  out. 
But  the  Emperor's  wife,  Theodora,  was  their  friend  ;  she  suc- 
ceeded in  restoring  their  hopes  and  giving  them  a  hierarchy. 
The  man  who  did  this  under  her  protection,  the  restorer  of  the 
sect  in  Syria,  in  some  sort  the  founder  of  the  present  Jacobite 
Church,  is  James  Baradai.2  He  was  born  at  Telia  early  in  the 
6th  century,  and  became  a  monk  at  Constantinople.  He  owes 
bis  nickname  Baradai  to  the  fact  that  later,  as  the  organizer  of 
Syrian  Monophysism,  he  went  about  in  a  ragged  cloak.3  When 
he  was  at  Constantinople  his  heresy  (he  was  always  a  Monophysite) 
was  at  a  very  low  ebb.  John  of  Ephesus  4  says  that  only  two  or 
three  of  their  bishops  remained  out  of  prison.5  Theodosius, 
Monophysite  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  (p.  220),  was  in  prison  in 
the  capital.  Under  the  Empress's  protection  he,  to  save  the  situa- 
tion, ordained  two  bishops — Theodore  for  Bosra  and  the  South, 
James  Baradai  for  Edessa  and  the  East  (probably  in  543).     As 

1  For  these  earlier  Monophysite  disturbances  see  pp.  190,  192,  196. 

2  In  Syriac  Ya'kub  burd'aya  (or  burd'ana  ;    see  Barhebraeus  :    ed.   cit. 
ii.  97). 

3  Barda'tha,  a  coarse  horse-cloth  (from  barduna,  a  mule).     The  Greeks 
call  him  'laKwfios  TCdvT(a\os. 

4  John  of  Ephesus  (f  after  585  ;    see  p.  305,  n.  3)  is  the  chief  authority 
for  this  story. 

5  J.  M.  Schonfelder  :   Die  Kirchengesch.  des  Johannes  v.  Ephesus  (Munich, 
1862),  i.  chap,  xxxiv.  (pp.  33-34). 


THE  JACOBITES  325 

soon  as  Baradai  was  ordained  he  began  those  amazing  journeys 
up  and  down  Syria  which  fill  the  rest  of  his  life,  by  which  he 
practically  re-created  his  sect,  for  which  certainly  he  deserves  the 
everlasting  gratitude  of  the  Jacobites  who  inherit  his  name.1  He 
was,  of  course,  compelled  to  hide  from  the  Government  (then 
rigidly  enforcing  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon).  Fleeing  always  from 
the  officials,  soldiers  and  Melkite  bishops,  disguised  in  the  ragged 
cloak  which  his  name  has  made  famous,  for  nearly  forty  years 
James  travelled  over  Syria,  Egypt,  Thrace  and  the  islands  of  the 
Archipelago.  For  a  great  part  of  his  missionary  journeys  he  was 
accompanied  by  two  monks,  Konon  and  Eugene,  whom  he  had 
sent  to  Egypt  to  be  ordained  bishop,  so  that  he  with  them  could 
ordain  others.2  Everywhere  he  fanned  into  flame  the  dying 
embers  of  Monophysism.  He  is  said  to  have  ordained  twenty- 
seven  bishops  and  one  hundred  thousand  priests  and  deacons  3 
for  his  sect.  He  acted  always  in  friendly  co-operation  with  the 
Egyptian  Monophysites.  But  he  was  not  so  much  wanted 
there,  where  the  party  was  already  strong.  His  work  was  in 
Syria.  He  did  not  himself  become  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  but 
he  ordained  two.  When  Severus  of  Antioch  was  dead  in  exile 
(c.  543) 4  he  ordained  Sergius  of  Telia  (543-546)  to  succeed  him,5 
then  an  Egyptian  monk,  Paul.  From  these  descends  the  line  of 
Jacobite  Patriarchs  of  Antioch,  by  the  side  of  their  Orthodox 
rivals.  From  this  time,  then,  we  may  count  the  Syrian  Jacobites 
as  a  separate  sect.  Worn  out  by  his  labours,  Baradai  died  in 
578.  Although  the  Monophysites  of  Syria  naturally  look  back 
to  Severus  of  Antioch 6  as  their  great  champion,  we  may  rightly 


1  See  p.  336. 

2  There  was  already  the  general  rule  that  it  takes  at  least  three  bishops 
to  ordain  one. 

3  Assemani  :  Bibl.  Or.  ii.  (Diss,  de  Monoph.)  v.  says  he  ordained  more 
than  two  thousand  priests. 

4  Gustav  Kriiger  says  that  Severus  died  in  538  (Prot.  Realenc.  xviii.  256) . 

5  So  the  Life  of  James  Baradai  in  Land  {Anecdota  syriaca,  ii.  256). 
Lamy  doubts  whether  Baradai  ordained  Sergius  (Barhebraeus,  i.  214,  n.  2). 

6  "  The  Patriarch  Severus,  the  excellent,  clothed  with  light,  occupant 
of  the  See  of  Antioch,  who  became  a  horn  of  salvation  to  the  Orthodox 
Church  (the  Monophysites)."  Hist,  of  the  Patr.  of  Alexandria  (ed.  cit.), 
p.  [185],  see  Barhebraeus  i.  194  :  "  the  holy  Severus,  scorning  life  and 
despising  earthly  glory." 


326        THE   LESSER   EASTERN    CHURCHES 

consider  their  sect,  as  a  separate  organized  body,  to  be  founded 
by  the  James  after  whom  they  are  called  Jacobites.1 


2.  The  Jacobites  in  the  Past 

From  the  foundation  of  the  sect  till  modern  times  there  are  not 
many  events  of  importance  to  chronicle.  Through  all  the  vicissi- 
tudes of  Syrian  history,  for  thirteen  centuries,  we  must  conceive 
this  Church  as  existing  obscurely  by  the  side  of  the  Orthodox  and 
the  Nestorians.  Its  first  general  note  is  that  it  has  always  been  a 
small  and  scattered  body.  It  never  became  the  national  Church 
of  the  whole  country,  as  did  the  Copts  in  Egypt.  The  reason  of 
this  lies  in  the  different  state  of  the  two  countries.  Egypt  is 
practically  an  island,  surrounded  by  desert  and  sea,  peopled  by 
one  race  with  one  language.  For  centuries  it  had  been  one 
mighty  kingdom  under  Pharaoh.  It  was  also  at  some  distance  by 
sea  from  the  centre  of  the  empire  at  Constantinople.  So  Egypt 
was  always  one  isolated,  compact  whole.  All  Egypt  moved 
together.  When  it  became  part  of  the  Roman  Empire  it  was 
still  one  land,  inhabited  by  one  non-Roman  race,  much  as  it  is 
now  under  British  control.  The  Roman,  then  Greek  functionaries 
were  a  small  minority  of  foreigners,  as  the  English  are  now.  So  it 
was  natural  that  a  national  movement,  as  was  Monophysism, 
should  become  the  cause  of  the  whole  land.  Nothing  of  this 
applies  to  Syria.  Syria  (with  Palestine)  has  no  natural  frontiers. 
It  has  always  been  the  home  of  several  races,  keeping  their  own 
languages.  It  is  in  no  sense  one,  neither  physically  nor  in  popula- 
tion. It  is  also  quite  near  and  most  accessible  from  Greece  and 
Constantinople.  From  the  time  of  Alexander  it  has  had  a  large 
and  powerful  Greek  population,  which  had  become  as  much  one 
of  its  constituent  races  as  the  others.  Greek  influence,  Greek 
language,  which  in  Egypt  were  foreign,  became  in  Syria  almost  as 
much  native  as  Syriac  ;  and  the  Emperor  could  fill  Syria  with 
his  soldiers,  could  impose  his  will  on  it  much  more  easily  than 
in  distant  Egypt.     So  Monophysism,  imported  into  Syria  from 

1  Barhebraeus  knows  and  admits  this  name  (Chron.  Eccl.  i.  218).  For 
Baradai  see  John  of  Ephesus :  Hist.  Eccl.  (ed.  Cureton,  Oxford,  1853); 
Assemani  :  Bibl.  Orient,  ii.  62-69  ;  H.  G.  Kleyn  :  Jacobus  Baradeus,  de 
stichter  der  syrische  monophysietische  Kerk  (Leiden,  1882). 


THE   JACOBITES  327 

Egypt,  never  became  a  national  cause  of  the  whole  country. 
East  Syria  had  adopted  the  extreme  opposite  heresy — Nestorian- 
ism.  All  over  Syria  the  Orthodox  were  always  a  large  body.  Nor 
was  their  faith  a  foreign  Greek  religion,  as  in  Egypt.  Great 
numbers  of  native  Syrians  were  and  remained  Orthodox.  The 
lines  of  Orthodox  bishops  and  patriarchs  were  never  interrupted. 
All  Baradai's  efforts  only  produced  a  new  sect  by  the  side  of  the 
Orthodox  Church.  At  no  time  in  their  history  were  the  Jacobites 
as  numerous  as  the  Orthodox  in  Syria. 

As  long  as  the  empire  held  their  country  the  Jacobites  were 
persecuted ;  the  continual  efforts  of  the  Government  to  bring 
Monophysites  to  communion  with  the  Orthodox,  either  by  force 
or  by  various  compromises,  naturally  affected  them  too.  Then 
came  the  Moslem  Arabs.  In  634  they  defeated  the  Roman  army 
at  Yarmuk  ;  they  took  Damascus,  Antioch,  Jerusalem,  occupied 
the  whole  country,  and  from  661  to  750  made  Damascus  the  centre 
of  their  vast  dominion.  From  that  time  all  Christian  Churches 
were  equally  subject  to  Moslem  rule.  The  Jacobites  received  the 
same  terms  as  the  Orthodox  and  Nestorians.  They,  too,  became 
a  "  nation  "  of  Christians  ;  they  suffered  intermittent  fierce 
persecution,  as  did  the  rival  Churches.  By  virtue  of  the  aston- 
ishing power  of  survival,  common  to  all  Christian  bodies  in  the 
East,  they  lasted  through  the  dark  centuries  which  followed. 
They  lost  numbers  of  apostates  to  Islam,  they  had  their  own 
internal  affairs,  obscure  quarrels  among  themselves.  But  one 
Jacobite  Patriarch  succeeded  another  ;  their  lines  of  bishops, 
though  gradually  reduced  in  numbers,  went  on  ;  they  are  still 
there,  scattered  about  Syria,  a  small,  poor  sect,1  which  still  loathes 
Chalcedon,  glories  in  the  memory  of  Severus  and  Baradai,  and  is 
in  communion  with  the  Copts. 

There  are  several  points  to  notice  during  this  time.  It  is 
curious  that  the  Jacobites  did  not  attempt  to  keep  up  a  Jacobite 
line  of  Patriarchs  of  Jerusalem.  They  had  followers  in  Palestine, 
and  once  the  Monophysites  had  intruded  a  man  of  their  party 
there  (Theodosius,  p.   189).     But  they  let  that  succession  go. 

1  Already  in  the  13th  century  Barhebraeus'  brother  (who  continued  his 
Chronicle)  calls  them  "  the  small  and  weak  people  of  the  Jacobites  "  (ed.  cit. 
ii.  474). 


328        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

The  Orthodox  were  allowed  to  keep  the  line  of  Jerusalem  un- 
challenged. We  hear  incidentally  of  a  Jacobite  bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem, Severus,  who  ordained  Athanasius  I  of  Antioch  (595-631), * 
but  after  of  no  other  till  the  time  of  the  Crusades.  Then  they 
made  Ignatius  I  Metropolitan  of  Jerusalem,  to  save  their  people 
from  the  Latin  Patriarchs.  He  reigned  from  about  1140  for 
forty-five  years.2  With  him  begins  a  regular  line  of  Jacobite 
Bishops  of  Jerusalem.  These  were  sometimes  (rarely)  called 
Patriarchs.3  Now  the  title  of  Jerusalem  is  merged  in  that  of 
the  Mafrian  (see  p.  340) .  The  one  Patriarch  whom  they  all  obey 
is  he  of  Antioch,  successor  of  Sergius  of  Telia  whom  Baradai 
ordained  (p.  325).  Another  curious  point  is  that  their  Church 
shifted  gradually  towards  the  East.  At  first  the  situation  was 
simple :  East  Syria  was  Nestorian,  West  Syria  Jacobite.  This 
old  distinction  is  still  kept  in  their  liturgical  language  and  char- 
acters. Jacobite  liturgies  are  in  the  West  Syrian  dialect,  written 
in  West  Syrian  letters,  different  from  those  of  the  Nestorians 
(p.  18,  n.  1) .  But  in  the  West  and  in  Palestine,  the  Orthodox  were 
strong.  So  the  Jacobites  moved  eastward  and  soon  came  into 
contact  with  their  great  adversaries — the  Nestorians.  They  even 
got  a  footing  in  Persia.  Here  they  became  the  rival  body  to 
Nestorians.  Each  was  the  heretical  body  to  the  other.  We  have 
noted  how  they  agreed  in  one  thing,  that  their  respective  theories 
were  the  only  alternative  ;  neither  took  into  account  a  third 
possibility — that  a  man  might  be  neither  a  Nestorian  nor  a 
Monophysite  (p.  54). 4  A  result  of  the  smallness  and  poverty  of 
the  Jacobites  is  that  their  Patriarch  has  never  been  able  to  live  in 
his  titular  city — Antioch.  Antioch  itself  was  held  as  a  stronghold 
by  the  Orthodox.  The  Jacobite  claimant 5  wandered  about 
Syria,  chiefly  to  the  East,  as  that  became  the  centre  of  gravity  of 
his  sect.     He  resided  often  at  Amida,  which  is  now  Diyarbakr, 

1  Barhebrseus,  i.  262. 

2  lb.  i.  496,  596.  Assemani  :  Bibl.  Orient,  ii.  (Diss,  de  Mon.),  §  viii. 
(sic  for  vii.).  s  Lequien,  ii.  1443. 

4  There  is  also  always  the  curious  position  that  a  man  who  accepts 
Chalcedon  is  called  a  Nestorian  by  Monophysites,  and  a  Monophysite  by 
Nestorians. 

5  A  list  of  Jacobite  Patriarchs  will  be  found  in  Lequien  :  Orient.  Christ. 
ii.  724-776,  and  Barhebraeus  :    Chron.  Eccl.  (ed.  cit.  vol.  i.). 


THE  JACOBITES  329 

sometimes  in  various  monasteries  of  his  party,  for  considerable 
intervals  at  the  monastery  Dair  Za'faran,  north  of  Mardin  in 
Mesopotamia.  Already,  in  the  end  of  the  6th  century,  Jacobitism 
obtained  a  foothold  in  Persia.  Tagrith  on  the  Tigris,  and  the 
famous  monastery  of  Mar  Mattai  in  the  heart  of  the  Nestorian 
country,  south-east  of  Mosul,  were  the  centres  from  which  their 
missionaries  spread  in  all  directions.  They  converted  a  number 
of  Nestorians,  among  others  Gabriel  of  Shiggar,  chief  medical 
adviser  of  King  Chosroes  II  (590-628).  Even  the  King's  chief 
wife,  Shirin,  became  a  Jacobite  Christian.1  The  Jacobites  had  a 
Metropolitan  for  Persia  (under  their  Patriarch  of  Antioch)  who  at 
first  lived  at  Mar  Mattai.  In  the  7th  century  their  Patriarch 
Athanasius  I  (595-631)  organized  the  Persian  mission  on  a  larger 
footing.  Chosroes  II,  after  his  victories,  had  brought  a  great 
number  of  Syrian  prisoners  back  to  Persia,  who  were  mostly 
Monophysites.  Athanasius  moved  the  Metropolitan  see  to 
Tagrith.  Here  Marutha,  a  monk  who  had  been  a  zealous  mis- 
sionary, ruled  over  twelve  suffragans  in  Persia.2  Then  he  made 
three  more  sees.3  Later  the  Persian  Jacobite  Metropolitan 
acquired  a  special  title,  famous  in  the  history  of  this  sect,  which 
still  exists  ;  he  was  the  Mafrian  (mafryana,  p.  340).  Naturally 
the  Nestorian  Katholikos  always  detests  Jacobite  activities  in  his 
territory  and  excommunicates  the  Mafrian  and  his  adherents  as 
obstinate  heretics. 

The  Jacobites,  nevertheless,  continued  to  make  converts. 
They  had  during  the  Middle  Ages  flourishing  schools  of 
theology,  philosophy,  history  and  science  of  all  kinds,  so 
that  their  sect  at  one  time  held  an  exceedingly  high  place  in  the 
history  of  Christian  literature.  Notably  in  the  12th  century  was 
there  a  great  revival  of  letters  among  the  Jacobites.4  One  of 
their  great  scholars  was  the  Patriarch  Michael  I  (1166-1199),  the 
same  who  condemned  Mark  ibn  alKanbar  in  Egypt  (p.  241).     His 

1  For  Jacobite  Missions  in  Persia  see  Labourt  :  Le  Christianisme  dans 
V empire  perse,  pp.  217-221. 

2  Barhebrseus  :    Chron.  Eccl.  ii.  1 18-128. 

3  lb.  Labourt  {op.  cit.  p.  241)  considers  fifteen  sees  to  be  impossible 
in  the  7th  century. 

4  Duval  (Litter,  syriaque)  and  Wright  (Syriac  Literature)  give  an  idea 
of  this. 


330        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

great  work  is  a  Chronicle,  only  lately  discovered.1  This  is  now 
the  chief  source  for  Nestorian  and  Jacobite  history.2  A  liturgy 
is  also  ascribed  to  him.3  The  most  notable,  perhaps  the  greatest 
man  they  ever  had,  is  Barhebraeus.  His  original  name  was  John 
Abu-lFarag  ;  he  was  of  Jewish  descent,  hence  his  nickname 
Barhebraeus.4  He  was  born  at  Melitene  on  the  Euphrates 
(north  of  Edessa)  in  1226  ;  after  many  troubles  at  the  time  of  the 
Tartar  invasion  (1243),  he  came  to  Antioch.  Here  he  became  a 
monk,  no  doubt  in  order  to  qualify  for  the  episcopate.  He  went 
to  Tripolis  (then  under  the  Franks),  where  he  had  a  Nestorian 
teacher.  At  Antioch  and  Tripolis  he  studied  medicine,  rhetoric, 
philosophy  and  many  things,  so  that  he  became  one  of  the  most 
learned  men  of  his  age.  In  1246  the  Jacobite  Patriarch  (Ignatius 
II,  1222-1252)  ordained  him  bishop,  when  he  took  the  name 
Gregory  ;  in  1264  he  became  Mafrian.  In  spite  of  his  numerous 
duties  as  Mafrian  he  found  time  to  write  on  philosophy,  theology, 
physics,  astronomy,  mathematics.  He  knew  Syriac,  Arabic, 
Persian,  Turkish,  but  not  much  Greek.  He  was  a  famous 
physician,  and  wrote  on  medicine  too  ;  he  composed  a  Syriac 
grammar,  commentaries  on  the  Bible,  and  a  collection  of  Jacobite 
Canons.  But  to  us  his  most  valuable  work  is  his  Universal 
History,  in  great  part  adapted  from  Michael  I's  Chronicle.  Parts 
II  and  III  of  this  are  an  invaluable  source  for  Jacobite  and 
Nestorian  history,  from  their  first  schisms  down  to  his  own  time 
(13th  century).5  He  has  not  as  much  prejudice  against  the  Nes- 
torians  as  one  would  expect.  He  died  in  1286,  respected  by 
everyone.  Orthodox,  Jacobites,  Nestorians  and  Armenians  for 
once  joined  to  honour  the  memory  of  so  learned  a  man.  He  is 
buried  at  Mar  Mattai.6 

1  A  bad  Armenian  version  was  already  known  (Duval :  op.  cit.  p.  207). 

2  Edited  with  a  translation  by  J.  Chabot  (p.  323,  n.  1). 

3  Renaudot  :   Lit.  Or.  Coll.  ii.  437-447  (see  below,  p.  347). 

4  Syriac  :   Bar  'Ebraya. 

5  Continued  by  others  down  to  1496  (see  p.  323,  n.  1). 

6  Badger  describes  his  tomb  :  The  Nestorians  and  their  Rituals,  i.  97. 
For  Barhebraeus  see  Duval:  Litter,  syriaque,  208-210,  409-411;  Wright: 
Hist,  of  Syriac  Literature,  265-281  ;  and  his  own  work  :  Chron.  Eccl.  ii.  431- 
486.  There  is  a  sketch  of  Barhebraeus  in  Th.  Noldeke's  :  Orientalische 
Skizzen  (Berlin,  1892),  253-273.  His  brother  says  of  Barhebraeus  :  "lam 
not  able  to  define  nor  to  describe  in  a  book  his    kindness,  humility  and 


THE   JACOBITES  331 

The  Jacobites  had  the  first  and  one  of  the  most  brilliant 
schools  of  liturgical  science.  Their  bishop  of  Edessa,  James 
(f  708),  wrote  a  liturgy,  a  compilation  of  prayers  for  the  Divine 
Office,  homilies  on  their  rite,  and  letters  on  liturgical  subjects.1 
Very  many  Jacobites  followed  in  his  steps.  Benjamin  of 
Edessa,  Lazarus  bar  Sabta,  Bishop  of  Bagdad  (deposed  in 
829), 2  Moses  bar  Kefa,  Bishop  of  Mosul  (f  903,  as  bishop  his 
name  was  Severus)3  wrote  valuable  treatises  on  the  Jacobite 
liturgy.  Especially  Dionysius  bar  Salibl  (f  1171),  Bishop  of 
Amida,  is  famous  as  the  author  of  a  treatise  (on  St.  James' 
liturgy)  4  such  as  no  other  Church  could  show  in  the  Middle  Ages. 
The  result  of  this  is  that  we  know  more  about  the  history  of  the 
Jacobite  rite  than  of  any  other. 

About  the  12th  century  the  Jacobite  Church  was  probably  in 
its  most  flourishing  state.  The  Patriarch  had  then,  immediately 
subject  to  himself,  twenty  Metropolitans  and  about  a  hundred 
bishops  in  Syria,  Asia  Minor,  Cyprus,  and  eighteen  more  bishops 
under  the  Mafrian  in  the  East.5  But  the  Patriarchal  dignity  itself 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  much  coveted.  Barhebraeus  says  that 
he  is  better  off  as  Mafrian.6  ShahrastanI  (12th  century)  knows 
the  Jacobites  and  gives  a  fairly  accurate  account  of  their  views.7 
On  the  whole,  they  were  a  tolerant  and  kindly  folk,  who  got  on 
with  their  neighbours  of  other  religions  better  than  most  people  in 
the  Middle  Ages.  In  their  zeal  for  scholarship  they  seem  always 
to  have  been  ready  to  learn  from  others.  We  saw  that  Barhebraeus 
had  a  Nestorian  master  at  Tripolis  (p.  330)  ;  later  he  employed 
Orthodox  artists  to  work  for  him  ; 8  he  even  writes  scornfully  of 
the  differences  between  Christians,  thinking  it  a  pity  that  they 
run  after  Nestorius  or  Baradai,  whereas  Christ  alone  matters,  and 
he  quotes  1  Cor.  iii .  5 .9  The  mild  an  d  harmless  little  sec  t  was  treated 

meekness,  nor  his  sweet  conversation  and  high  soul,  because  I  am  rude, 
weak  and  not  eloquent.  I  must  rather  be  silent,  trusting  that  the  masters 
and  brethren  and  approved  teachers  who  knew  him  well  will  give  him 
credit  for  his  virtues  "  (ed.  cit.  ii.  486). 

1  Duval  :   Litter,  syr.  375-378.  2  lb.  389. 

3  lb.  391-392.  4  Expositio  liturgies  (cf.  p.  191). 

5  Assemani  :   Diss,  de  Monoph.  §  viii.  6  Barhebraeus,  ii.  460. 

7  Ed.  Haarbrucker,  i.  267-270. 

8  Barhebraeus,  ii.  464.  9  Noldeke  :   Orient.  Skizzen,  267. 


332   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

kindly  by  its  neighbours  on  many  occasions.  When  Barhebraeus 
entered  Bagdad  as  Mafrian  in  1265,  the  Nestorian  Katholikos 
(Mkika,  1257-1281)  sent  his  two  nephews  and  a  deputation  to 
welcome  him.1  Mar  Yaballaha  III  (1281-1317,  p.  97)  was  very 
well  disposed  towards  Jacobites.2  Even  with  the  Crusaders,  who 
persecuted  all  schismatics,  Jacobite  relations  were  not  always 
bad.  Sometimes  the  Latins  ill-treated  them  ;  3  at  other  times 
they  seem  to  have  got  on  well  together.  Michael  I  praised  the 
tolerance  of  the  Franks.4 

The  sect  at  one  time  had  several  outlying  colonies.  Even  as 
late  as  the  nth  century  they  still  had  a  community  and  a  church 
at  Constantinople.5  They  had  a  great  monastery  "  of  the  Mother 
of  God  "  in  the  Nitrian  desert,6  and  many  churches  in  Egypt.7 
For  their  relations  with  Armenians  see  p.  432,  n.  3.  But  through- 
out their  history  they  have  had  continual  quarrels,  schisms  and 
rival  Patriarchs  among  themselves.  From  about  the  6th  till  after 
the  8th  century  there  was  in  Syria  a  smaller  Monophysite  body, 
the  "  Julianists  "  who  were  aphthartolatrians  (p.  207) ;  these 
had  their  own  Patriarch.8  In  Barhebraeus'  time  there  was  a 
schism,  and  two  Patriarchs.  Dionysius  of  Melitene  was  elected 
without  the  consent  of  the  Mafrian  (John  Bar  M'adene)  in  1252. 
This  was  against  the  canons  (p.  337)  ;  so  Bar  M'adene  not  only 
refused  to  recognize  him,  but  got  himself  elected  rival  Patriarch. 
Both  then  began  bribing  Moslem  officials,  Jacobite  bishops  and 
notables  in  order  to  be  recognized.  Barhebraeus  was  on  Diony- 
sius' side  and  was  employed  as  a  go-between.  The  schism  lasted 
till  Dionysius,  who  had  murdered  his  two  nephews,  was  himself 
murdered  by  the  monks  of  Mar  Bar  Sauma,  while  he  was  standing 
at  the  altar  during  the  Night  Office  on  February  18,  1261.9 

But  the  great  trouble  was  from  1292  to  1495.     During  these  two 

1  Barhebraeus,  ii.  436.  2  Noldeke,  loc.  cit.  267. 

3  Martin  :  Les  premiers  princes  croises  et  les  Syriens  Jacobites  de  Jerusa- 
lem ;    "  Journ.  asiatique,"  viii.  12  (1888),  pp.  471-490. 

4  Ed.  Chabot,  iii.  183,  222  :  "  The  Pontiffs  of  our  Church  were  among 
them,  without  being  persecuted  or  hurt." 

5  lb.  iii.  185. 

6  Dair  asSuriani  ;    Butler  :   Anc.  Coptic  Churches,  i.  316-326. 

7  Baumstark  :  Festbrevier  u.  Kirchenjahr  der  Syr.  Jakobiten  (Paderborn, 
1911),  p.  10. 

8  Michael  I  (ed.  Chabot),  ii.  263-267.  9  Barhebraeus,  i.  696-744. 


THE  JACOBITES  333 

centuries  there  were  formidable  schisms  among  the  Jacobites, 
resulting  in  no  less  than  four  rival  Patriarchs. 

In  1292  the  Patriarch  Ignatius  IV  died.  His  name  had  been 
Philoxenus  or  Nimrod.1  His  election  had  been  disputed  and  he 
is  said  to  have  been  ordained  by  force  (in  1283). 2  When  he  died 
the  quarrel  revived  and  three  men  were  made  Patriarch,  each  by 
a  party.  They  were  Constantine  Metropolitan  of  Melitine, 
Michael  Archimandrite  of  Gawikath  and  Bdarzake  3  Bar  Wahib 
of  Mardin.  Michael  and  Bdarzake  both  took  the  name  Ignatius, 
according  to  what  was  already  the  custom  (see  p.  338).  Constan- 
tine was  killed  the  next  year  by  the  Kurds  ;  Michael  reigned  at 
Sis  in  Cilicia,  Bdarzake  at  Mardin  and  Tur  'Abdin.4  But  other 
rivals  spring  up,  so  that  for  a  time  there  seem  to  have  been  four 
lines,  at  Mardin,  Sis,  at  the  monastery  of  Mar  Bar  Sauma,  and  at 
Tur  'Abdin.  Then  two  were  left,  Ignatius  Mas'ud  at  Tur  'Abdin 
and  Ignatius  Noah  at  Mardin  (1493-1509).  Mas'ud  retired  to  a 
monastery  in  1495,  forbade  his  followers  to  choose  a  successor  to 
him,  and  exhorted  them  to  submit  to  Ignatius  Noah.  This  they 
did  ;  so  Noah  (who  was  Ignatius  XII)  at  last  united  all  the  sect 
under  his  authority.5 

During  all  the  Middle  Ages  elections  bought  for  money  and 
bribery  of  all  kinds  were  common.6 

In  the  14th  century  especially  the  Jacobites  were  persecuted  by 
Moslems  ;  from  that  time  their  sect  shrank  to  a  small  body.  In  the 
16th  century  they  consisted  of  only  fifty  thousand  poor  families ;  in 
the  17th  their  Patriarch  had  five  Metropolitans  and  about  twenty 
bishops  under  him.  From  that  time  begins  the  Uniate  Syrian 
Church,  of  which  in  our  next  volume.  Meanwhile  the  Mafrian 
was  no  longer  really  the  head  of  the  Eastern  Jacobites,  but  had 
become  a  titular  Metropolitan,  second  to  the  Patriarch  and  some- 
thing like  his  Vicar-General  (p.  340). 

Their  relations  with  the  Copts  are  interesting.     They  profess 

1  lb.  i.  782.  2  lb.  780. 

3  Bdarzake  =  "The  conqueror  scatters,"  or  it  may  be  Arabic:  Badr 
zakah,  "  Splendour  of  Purity."  4  Barhebraeus,  i.  782-792. 

5  lb.  i.  847. 

6  For  the  Jacobite  successions  see  Chabot :  "  Les  fiveques  Jacobites  "  in 
the  Revue  de  I'Orient.  chret.  1899,  pp.  444-451,  495-511;  Lequien :  Or. 
Christ,  ii.  1 357-1408,  and,  of  course,  Barhebraeus,  vol.  i. 


334        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

the  same  faith  l  and  are  normally  in  communion  with  them. 
Indeed,  the  Jacobites  have  always  looked  up  to  the  Copts  as  the 
leaders  of  their  religion,  as  a  larger  and  wealthier  body  ;  also 
because  the  old  canon  law,  which  in  this  point  they  maintain, 
gives  Alexandria  precedence  over  Antioch.  But  they  are  a 
quarrelsome  folk,  and  frequent  schisms  have  interrupted  these 
good  relations.  Under  Damian  of  Alexandria  (570-593  or  605) 
and  Peter  Kallunlkya  of  Antioch  (578-591)  2  there  was  a  schism 
concerning  some  dispute  about  the  Holy  Trinity.3  It  lasted  till 
Anastasius  of  Alexandria  (603-614)  and  Athanasius  I  of  Antioch 
(595-631) ,  who  came  to  Egypt  and  made  peace.4  The  illegitimate 
succession  of  Isaac  of  Haran  as  Patriarch  of  Antioch  in  754  5 
caused  another  schism  with  Egypt.6  Under  Kuryakus  (Cyriacus  I) 
of  Antioch  (793-817),  the  Jacobites  set  up  an  anti-patriarch, 
Abraham  (or  Abira).  Many  followed  him  and  this  caused  again  a 
schism  with  the  Copts,  which  lasted  till  825. 7  Under  Christodulos 
of  Alexandria  (1047-1078)  there  was  schism,  because  the  Jacobites 
mixed  salt  and  oil  with  the  bread  for  the  Holy  Eucharist,  which 
the  Copts  would  not  allow.8  In  the  12th  century  the  question  of 
Confession  raised  by  Mark  ibn  alKanbar  (p.  241)  made  a  schism, 
since  the  Jacobites  wavered.9  However,  except  for  such 
quarrels  as  these,  the  two  sects  have  been  in  communion.     Each 

1  Practically.     See  p.  342. 

2  Counting  St.  Peter  as  first  Patriarch,  and  Peter  Fullo,  he  would  be 
Peter  III  (Lequien,  ii.  1359). 

3  Barhebraeus  says  that  Damian  was  guilty  of  Tritheism,  "  because  "  he 
called  the  notional  properties  (dilayatha  maiknaniyatha)  of  the  Holy  Trinity 
persons  (knume).  Ed.  cit.  i.  257.  Severus  of  Al-Ushmunain,  on  the  Coptic 
side,  says  that  Peter  of  Antioch  was  like  a  deaf  asp,  and  "  divided  the  un- 
divided Trinity"  with  "a  tongue  which  deserved  to  be  cut  out"  (ed. 
Evetts,  p.  [213]). 

4  See  above,  p.  222  ;  Barhebraeus,  i.  270  ;  Severus,  pp.  [216-217].  When 
Athanasius  received  the  Synodical  letter  of  Anastasius  he  said  :  "  The  world 
to-day  rejoices  in  peace  and  love,  because  the  Chalcedonian  darkness  has 
passed  away  "  (ib.). 

5  He  was  already  a  bishop  (see  p.  231)  ;    Barhebraeus,  i.  316. 

6  Bibl.  Orient,  ii.  (Diss,  de  Mon.)  §  hi.  Renaudot  :  Hist.  Patr.  Alex.  217. 
His  account,  taken  from  AlMakin,  is  inaccurate.  He  makes  John  II, 
Isaac's  predecessor,  the  uncanonically  transferred  bishop. 

7  Barhebraeus,  i.  342,  360  ;    Renaudot  :   Hist.  Patr.  Alex.  248-249,  270. 

8  Renaudot,  425  ;    Assemani  :   Bibl.  Orient,  loc.  cit. 

9  Barhebraeus,  i.  574-576. 


THE  JACOBITES  335 

new  Monophysite  Patriarch  sends  an  announcement  of  his 
succession  and  "  Synodical  letters  "  to  his  brother  Patriarch, 
asking  for  his  prayers  and  inter-communion.  This  custom  began 
when  Athanasius  I  of  Antioch  and  Anastasius  I  of  Alexandria 
made  peace  (p.  222). 

A  great  quarrel,  which  however  did  not  lead  to  a  schism, 
occurred  when  Cyril  III  (Ibn  Luklus)  of  Alexandria  (1235-1243  or 
1250)  ordained  a  Coptic  Metropolitan  for  Jerusalem.  This  was 
certainly  a  wrong  done  to  Antioch.  The  frontier  of  the  two 
Patriarchates  does  not  seem  to  have  been  very  clearly  marked 
(Barhebraeus  says  it  was  at  al'Arish)  ;  x  but  in  any  case  Jeru- 
salem would  belong  to  Antioch.  The  Jacobites  had  a  Metropolitan 
there  (p.  328).  They  remonstrated  and  their  Patriarch,  Ignatius 
(David)  II  (1222-1252),  as  a  kind  of  revenge,  ordained  a  bishop  for 
Abyssinia.  Eventually  the  Copts  promised  that  their  bishop  of 
Jerusalem  should  not  use  jurisdiction  beyond  the  frontier  of 
Egypt  (which  they  said  was  at  Gaza)  .2  In  spite  of  this  they  keep  a 
Metropolitan  of  Jerusalem  at  Jaffa,  who  orders  the  affairs  of  their 
colony  in  Palestine  (p.  256).  About  1840  Mr.  J.  W.  Etheridge 
visited  the  Jacobites  and  wrote  an  account  of  their  Church.3 
Mr.  G.  P.  Badger,  when  visiting  the  Nestorians  in  1842  (p.  118), 
also  examined  the  Jacobites  and  wrote  an  interesting  account  of 
them.4  He  wanted  Anglicans  to  missionize  this  body  ;  but,  so 
far,  hardly  any  such  attempt  has  been  made.  In  1892  Mr.  Oswald 
H.  Parry  visited  the  Jacobite  Patriarch,  to  see  what  prospect 
there  might  be  of  an  Anglican  mission  to  his  people  (no  doubt  on 
the  lines  of  the  mission  to  the  Nestorians)  ; 5  but  nothing  seems  to 
have  come  of  it.  There  is  a  small  Low  Church  mission  in  Jeru- 
salem, conducted  by  a  lady,  which  makes  a  few  converts.  But 
American  Protestants  are  active  among  the  Jacobites.  American 
Congregationalists  and  Presbyterians  have  divided  Mesopotamia 
between  themselves,  and  have  mission  stations  at  most  centres. 

1  Barhebraeus,  i.  657. 

2  Barhebraeus,  i.  656-664;  Renaudot,  579-580;  Assemani :  loc.  cit.  §  vi. 
The  Franks  supported  the  Copts  in  this  quarrel. 

3  Etheridge  :    The  Syrian  Churches  (Longmans,  Green,  1846). 

4  Badger:  The  Nestorians  and  their  Rituals  (Masters,  1852),  i.  chap.  vi. 
pp.  59-65,  etc. 

5  Parry  :   Six  Months  in  a  Syrian  Monastery  (London,  1895),  pp.  312-313. 


336        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

As  usual  they  began  with  the  idea,  not  of  making  converts,  but  of 
educating  and  spiritualizing,  then  quarrelled  with  the  hierarchy, 
and  now  have  small  sects  of  ex- Jacobite  Protestants.1 

3.  Organization  and  Hierarchy 

The  name  Jacobite,  known  to  us  in  England  in  a  more  honour- 
able connection,2  is  since  about  the  8th  century  the  usual  one  for 
the  Monophysite  Church  of  Syria.3  It  has  been  explained  in 
other  ways,  for  instance,  as  derived  from  St.  James  the  Less 
(whose  rite  they  use)  ;  but  there  is  no  doubt  that  it  comes  really 
from  James  4  Baradai  (p.  324). 

The  total  number  of  Jacobites  is  now  estimated  at  about  eighty 
thousand.5  Most  of  them  live  in  the  district  of  Tur  'Abdin  by  the 
upper  Tigris,  between  Diyarbakr  and  Mardin.  Here  are  about  one 
hundred  and  fifty  Jacobite  villages.  They  have  smaller  colonies 
at  Diyarbakr,  Edessa,  Mosul,  very  few  families  at  Bagdad, 
Damascus,  Aleppo,6  hardly  any  in  Palestine,  except  a  small 
colony  at  Jerusalem.  They  are  now  a  poor  and  backward  people, 
neglected  by  the  more  advanced  parts  of  Christendom,  suffering 
still  from  centuries  of  oppression  and  isolation,  generally  despised 
by  their  neighbours.  All  who  know  them  admit  that  the  Mono- 
physite Jacobites  stand  far  behind  their  brothers  who  have 
returned  to  union  with  Rome.7  All  talk  Arabic,  except  thirty  or 
forty  villages  in  Tur  'Abdin,  who  still  speak  Syriac.8 

1  Parry:  ib.  306-310. 

2  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Eusebe  Renaudot,  the  great  authority  for 
all  Eastern  Churches  (f  1720),  was  employed  by  Lewis  XIV  to  assist  the 
English  refugees  at  St.  Germain  (Villien  :  L'abbe  Eusebe  Renaudot,  Paris, 
1904,  pp.  48-55) .     So  he  had  to  do  with  Jacobites  in  both  senses  of  the  word . 

3  It  occurs  among  the  anathemas  of  the  Second  Council  of  Nicaea  (787)  : 
"  To  all  Eutychians  and  Monotheletes  and  Jacobites  anathema  thrice." 
Of  course  the  Jacobites  always  call  themselves  orthodox. 

4  Ya'kiib,  Jacobus.  "  Jacobite  "  is  in  Syriac  Ya'kubaya,  or  Ya'kubitha  ; 
Arabic  :    Ya'kubiyah. 

5  Etheridge  in  1846  gives  their  number  as  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand 
(op.  cit.  p.  149)  ;  Socin  (Der  neu-aramaische  Dialekt  des  Tur  'Abdin,  2  vols., 
Gottingen,  1881,  pp.  iv-v)  says  there  are  only  forty  thousand;  Badger  (op. 
cit.  i.  62)  says  about  one  hundred  thousand  (in  1842).  Parry  says  one 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  to  two  hundred  thousand  (Six  Months,  p.  345). 

6  Bagdad,  Damascus,  and  Aleppo  have  large  Syrian  Uniate  communi- 
ties.    There  are  Uniates  throughout  the  Jacobite  country. 

7  E.g.  Badger  :  op.  cit.  i.  63-64.  8  Cf.  Socin  :  op.  cit.  p.  vi. 


THE   JACOBITES  337 

Over  this  scattered  flock  rules  the  Jacobite  "  Patriarch  of 
Antioch,  the  Divinely-protected  City,  and  of  all  the  domain  of  the 
Apostolic  Throne."  He  is  always  a  monk.  He  receives  a  berat 
from  the  Government.  The  bishops,  under  the  Mafrian,  elect  him. 
A  great  principle  has  always  been  that  :  "  Neither  the  Patriarch 
without  the  Mafrian,  nor  the  Mafrian  without  the  Patriarch  can 
be  appointed."  x  There  have  been  cases  of  election  by  lot.2  The 
old  rule  was  very  clear  against  the  translation  of  a  bishop  from  one 
see  to  another ;  so  the  Patriarch  was  never  already  a  bishop. 
But  isolated  exceptions  to  this  rule  occur  fairly  early.  Thus  in 
668  the  Metropolitan  of  Tarsus  had  been  Metropolitan  of  Amida,3 
Athanasius  VII  (Patriarch,  1090-1129)  transferred  the  Metropoli- 
tan of  Gubos  to  Melitine.4  One  of  the  first  cases  of  a  Patriarch 
already  a  bishop  was  that  of  Athanasius  VI  (Haye,  1058-c.  1064), 
who  had  been  bishop  of  Arishmitat  ( Arsamosata) ,  and  at  his 
election  there  was  a  tumult  and  a  schism  for  this  very  reason.5 
Then  the  custom  of  transferring  bishops  became  more  and  more 
common.  Eventually  the  Mafrian  himself  constantly  became 
Patriarch,  in  direct  opposition  to  the  old  principle.  In  the  15th 
century  the  continuer  of  Barhebraeus  says  :  "It  was  the  custom 
that  either  the  Mafrian  should  be  made  Patriarch  himself,  or  that 
he  should  ordain  whomever  he  thinks  fit."  6  Now  the  Mafrian 
generally  become  Patriarch.  Since  the  Patriarch  appoints  the 
Mafrian,  this  means  practically  naming  his  own  successor.  Bar- 
hebraeus insists  strongly  that  if  the  Patriarch  is  already  a  bishop, 
he  should  not  be  reordained,  but  only  the  additional  special 
prayers  and  ceremonies  for  a  Patriarch's  ordination  should  be 
used.7  In  the  old  days  the  Patriarch  was  ordained  by  the  senior 
bishops.  Then  the  custom  was  that  the  Mafrian  should  ordain 
him,  and  vice  versa.  The  first  case  of  this  was  the  ordination  of 
Dionysius  V  (1077-1078).  Now  that  he  is  himself  generally  the 
Mafrian,  they  return  (in  such  cases)  necessarily  to  the  old  rule. 
Barhebraeus  gives  an  account  of  the  office  of  each  bishop  at  a 
Patriarchal  consecration  in  his  time  (in  his  account  of  Michael  Fs 
consecration,    1166).     The   Mafrian   ordains,   and  twelve   other 

1  Barhebraeus,  ii.  130,  456.  2  So  John  11  (740—754),  ib.  i.  306—308. 

3  Ib.  i.  284.  *  Ib.  i.  466.  5  Ib.  i.  438. 

6  Ib.  ii.  538.  7  Ib.  702,  794. 

22 


338        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

bishops  also  lay  on  their  hands.  The  Metropolitan  of  Edessa 
celebrates  the  holy  liturgy,  he  of  Melitine  reads  the  gospel,  and  he 
of  Bar  Salibi  the  other  lesson.  He  of  Kishum  proclaims  the 
Patriarch,  he  of  Gihun  and  he  of  Gubos  say  the  prayers.1  In  the 
past  there  are  many  cases  of  the  Mafrian  and  other  bishops 
ordaining  to  the  episcopate,2  and  once  each  bishop  consecrated 
his  own  chrism.3  But  now  for  centuries  (apparently  since  the 
time  of  Barhebraeus)  the  Patriarch  alone  ordains  all  bishops  and 
blesses  the  chrism  for  all  Jacobites.4 

The  first  Patriarch  to  change  his  name  for  Ignatius  was  Ignatius 
III  (formerly  Joshua,  1264-1282).5  Since  Ignatius  V  (Bar  Wahlb 
of  Mardin  in  1292,  p.  333)  all  Jacobite  Patriarchs  take  this  name 
in  memory  of  the  great  martyr-bishop  of  Antioch,  who,  by  the 
way,  was  certainly  not  a  Monophysite.6 

The  seat  of  the  Patriarch  has  varied  considerably  (p.  328). 
Ignatius  VI  (Ismael,  1333-1366)  was  the  first  to  reside  at  Tur 
'Abdin.7  Now  he  generally  resides  at  Diyarbakr  or  Mardin  ;  but 
the  church  of  Dair  Za'faran  (five  miles  east  of  Mardin)  is  counted 
as  his  Patriarchal  church.8  Indeed,  although  his  real  title  is,  of 
course,  Antioch,  he  is  now  commonly  called  "  the  Patriarch  of 
Za'faran."  The  present  Jacobite  Patriarch  is  Lord  Ignatius 
'Abdullah  Sattuf.  His  Holiness  was  born  at  Sadad,  a  village 
about  six  hours  south  of  Horns,  where  many  Jacobites  live.  His 
original  name  is  'Abdullah  Sattuf.  Having  entered  a  monastery, 
he  became  Bishop  of  Horns  and  Hama,  taking  the  name  Gregory. 
Then  he  was  Metropolitan  of  Diyarbakr.  He  came  once  to 
England  (as  Bishop  of  Horns  and  Hama),  collected  money  and 
imbibed  here  some  Protestantizing  ideas.  He  also  went  to  look 
after  his  co-religionists  on  the  Malabar  coast,  and  there  fraternized 

1  Barhebraeus,  i.  542. 

2  Barhebraeus  says  that  in  629  the  Patriarch  refused  to  ordain  the 
Mafrian,  because  a  canon  of  Nicaea  says  that  his  own  suffragans  should  do 
so  !  (ii.  122). 

3  Bibl.  Orient,  ii.  (Diss,  de  Mon.  viii.  for  vii.).  4  lb.  5  lb.  i.  750. 

6  E.g.  ad  Smyrn.  iv.  2  :  "I  bear  all  things,  sustained  by  him  who 
became  a  perfect  man."  St.  Ignatius  is  particularly  indignant  with 
Docetism  (ib.  v.),  of  which  Monophysism  was  a  kind  of  revival. 

7  Barhebraeus,  i.  802. 

8  For  a  description  of  this,  see  O.  H.  Parry  :  Six  Months  in  a  Syrian 
Monastery  (London,  1895),  103-111. 


THE  JACOBITES 


339 


with  Protestant  missionaries.     Returning  to  Syria  he  had  already 
begun  to  agitate  against  the  use  of  holy  pictures,  and  otherwise 


FIG.    12. THE    JACOBITE    PATRIARCH    MAR    IGNATIUS     ABDULLAH    SATTUF. 


spread  Protestant  ideas  when,  as  a  result  of  some  obscure  quarrel, 
he  surprised  everyone  by  turning  Uniate  in  1896.  He  was  a 
Syrian  Uniate  for  nine  years,  and  held  the  Uniate  see  of  Horns. 
Then,  in  1905,  he  went  back  to  the  Jacobites,  received  again  his 
see  of  Diyarbakr  and  a  promise  of  the  Patriarchal  throne,  when  it 
should  be  vacant.  Soon  after,  in  1906,  the  former  Patriarch, 
Ignatius  'Abdulmaslh,  was  deposed  and  went  to  Malabar.  In 
spite  of  the  promise  it  cost  Sattuf  much  intrigue  and  £T35o 


340        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

(borrowed  from  the  resident  Jacobite  bishop  at  Jerusalem)  to 
secure  his  own  election ;  eventually  he  had  to  spend  altogether 
/T500.  He  was  enthroned  on  August  15,  1906  (O.S.).  As  an 
exception,  he  has  never  been  Mafrian.  There  are  discontented 
Jacobites  under  him  who  say  that  His  Holiness  stains  the  Patri- 
archal throne  by  various  faults,  of  which  excessive  avarice  is  the 
chief.     Many  hope  for  and  expect  his  deposition.1 

Immediately  under  the  Patriarch,  as  his  assistant,  counsellor, 
and  vicar-general,  comes  the  Mafrian  (mafryana.).2  Since  the 
collapse  of  the  Jacobite  Church  in  the  East  (practically  since  the 
quarrels  and  schisms  of  the  14th  century)  the  Mafrian  has  resided 
near  the  Patriarch,  having  no  real  see  of  his  own,  but  acting  as  a 
vicar-general  and  auxiliary  bishop.  Before  that  he  was  almost 
a  second  Patriarch  for  Eastern  Jacobites,  a  kind  of  opposition 
Katholikos.3  He  could  ordain  bishops,  consecrate  the  chrism, 
and  so  on.  Now  he  has  lost  these  rights.  On  the  other  hand, 
since  he  ceased  to  exercise  jurisdiction  in  the  East,  he  unites  to 
his  dignity  that  of  their  see  of  Jerusalem.  The  Jacobite  Metro- 
politan of  Jerusalem  is  the  Mafrian.  But  it  appears  that  the 
institution  of  the  Mafrian  is  rather  in  abeyance  in  the  latest 
period.  A  Mafrian  is  no  longer  regularly  appointed.  They  have 
now  eight  metropolitans,  of  Jerusalem  (the  Mafrian),  Mosul,  Mar 
Mattai  (the  Abbot  of  that  monastery),  Mar  din,  Urfah  (Edessa), 
Harputh,  and  two  "general"  (temelaya)  metropolitans  without 
fixed  sees.  There  are  three  simple  bishops,  in  monasteries  in  Tur 
'Abdin.  The  Mafrian  has  a  delegate  bishop  to  represent  him  at 
Jerusalem.     Diyarbakr  itself  counts  normally  as  the  Patriarch's 

1  I  should  perhaps  add  that  I  have  these  details  from  first-hand  sources 
in  Syria.     I  regret  that  they  are  more  curious  than  edifying. 

2  Mafryana  means  "  fructifier  "  (from  fra,  to  make  fruitful,  beget). 
Marutha  (the  first  Mafrian)  made  Tagrith  a  fruitful  soil  of  Jacobitism 
(p-  329)-  The  name,  given  first  to  him  as  a  compliment,  became  a  regular 
title  (Labourt :  Le  Christianisme,  etc.  p.  241).  Cf.  Apost.  Const,  viii. 
X.  12  :  'TVep  rvv  Kapiro(popovnwv  if  -rtf  ayia  eKK\7]<ria.  Michael  I  calls  the 
Mafrian  by  a  Greek  name,  "  epitronisa "  (eVtflopw),  to  make  fruitful;  or 
iiridpoviCw  ?  (ed.  Chabot,  iii.  451).  In  Arabic  he  is  often  called  the  Patriarch's 
"  wakil "  (vicar). 

3  The  Mafrian  was  sometimes  called  Katholikos  and  Wakil  (vicar)  by 
the  Jacobites.  Barhebraeus  gives  a  list  of  Mafrians  and  their  lives  (Chronicon 
Eccl.  ii.). 


THE  JACOBITES  341 

own  diocese  ;  though,  as  we  have  seen,  the  present  Patriarch 
held  that  see  before  his  accession.  A  metropolitan  has  no 
suffragans.  It  is  now  a  mere  title  for  many  bishops.1  The  bishop 
must  be  celibate.  He  is  named  and  ordained  by  the  Patriarch, 
who  at  the  ordination  has  two  or  three  assistants.  Most  of  their 
chief  sees  carry  a  new  name  with  them  ;  thus  the  Metropolitan 
of  Mosul  is  always  Basil,  he  of  Mardin  always  Athanasius,  and  so 
on.2  There  are  now  five  Jacobite  monasteries  in  Tur  'Abdin, 
Mar  Mattai  near  Mosul,3  Dair  Za'faran  by  Diyarbakr,  Mar  Muse 
between  Damascus  and  Palmyra,  Mar  Markus  at  Jerusalem  north- 
east of  the  great  Armenian  monastery.4  This  is  only  a  poor 
remnant  of  the  vast  number  of  monasteries  (seventy  in  Tur  '  Abdin 
alone)  which  they  once  had.  The  bishops  live  nearly  always  in 
monasteries.  There  are,  I  believe,  no  Jacobite  nuns  now. 
Secular  priests  must  be  married  once  only  before  ordination. 
A  priest  whose  wife  dies  must  go  into  a  monastery,  unless 
they  make  him  an  uskuf  (see  n.  1).  There  is  a  curious  idea 
that  the  priest  should  come  from  the  village  he  serves.  When  a 
parish  priest  dies  the  village  council  chooses  a  suitable  deacon  and 
sends  him  to  the  bishop,  who  ordains  him  without  any  preparatory 
training.  The  priest  receives  small  fees  from  his  people  and  ekes 
out  these  by  working  in  the  fields  like  anyone  else.  The  title 
Chorepiskopos  is  a  mere  ornament  given  to  priests  of  important 
parishes.  The  Jacobites  have  innumerable  deacons,  ordained  in 
crowds.  Most  of  these  remain  in  the  same  state  as  laymen, 
earning  their  living  ;  but  they  serve  as  deacons  in  church.  Most 
monasteries  are  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  ordinary  ;  but 
those  which  contain  tombs  of  Patriarchs  or  Mafrians  are  Stauro- 
pegia.  All  clergy  shave  the  head  entirely  and,  of  course,  wear  a 
beard.     The  minor  orders  (singer,  reader,  subdeacon)   are  now 

1  Namely  the  metropolitan  (Mutran)  is  a  bishop  who  is  a  monk.  A 
secular  priest  and  widower  may  become  an  uskuf  (iirivKorros),  and  so  take 
a  lower  place  in  the  hierarchy. 

2  Silbernagl  :   op.  cit.  308-312. 

3  Where  Barhebraeus  is  buried.  Badger  :  op.  cit.  i.  95-98.  The  adjoin- 
ing monastery,  Mar  Behnam,  is  Uniate. 

4  Behind  the  Harat  anNabi  Da'ud.  They  also  have  a  chapel  in  the 
Anastasis  against  the  outside  wall,  immediately  behind  the  Holy  Sepulchre. 
Parry  gives  a  list  of  Jacobite  sees  (Six  Months,  321-323).  See  also  ib.  320 
for  a  bishop's  ordination. 


342        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

obsolete.     Of  the  canon  law  which  rules  all  these  people  the 
classical  collection  is  that  of  Barhebraeus.1 


4.  The  Jacobite  Faith 

For  this  we  may  in  general  refer  to  that  of  their  co-religionists 
in  Egypt  (pp.  259-265).  But  there  are  one  or  two  special  points  to 
notice.  That  they  are  Monophysites  hardly  needs  to  be  said. 
Their  formula  is  that  our  Lord  is  one  "  from  two  natures  (now 
become  one  nature)."  As  they  identify  nature  and  person,  they 
also  say  that  he  is  one  person  "  from  two  persons."2  Like  most 
later  Monophysites,  they  anathematize  Eutyches  (p.  168).  But 
there  is  some  slight  difference  between  the  Monophysism  of  Egypt 
and  of  Syria.  The  Syrians  were  always  less  vehemently  opposed 
to  the  Orthodox  than  the  Egyptians.  They  took  up  the  cause 
less  hotly  (p.  326),  and  on  the  whole  stood  nearer  to  the  faith  of 
the  empire.  So  in  their  authors  the  concept  of  our  Lord  is  less 
strictly  Monophysite,  less  Docetic  than  among  the  Copts.3  But 
I  doubt  how  far  they  are  conscious  of  any  difference  now.  Con- 
cerning the  Procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  although  they  have,  of 
course,  no  Filioque  in  their  creed,  and  declare  that  they  believe  the 
Holy  Ghost  to  proceed  from  the  Father  alone,  Renaudot  observes 
that  they  are  less  opposed  to  us  on  this  point  than  the  Orthodox, 
and  he  quotes  from  their  authors  sentences  very  like  our  dogma.4 
Concerning  the  Sacraments  they  agree  in  general  with  the  Copts. 

1  Nomocanon  (Ktaba  dHuddaye),  in  Latin  by  J.  A.  Assemani  in  Mai: 
Script,  vet.  Nova  Coll.  x.  At  Mardln  there  is  a  curious  group  of  semi- 
Christian  Jacobites  who  were  once  sun- worshippers.  They  put  themselves 
under  the  Jacobite  bishop,  were  baptized  and  conformed  to  his  religion,  in 
order  to  escape  Moslem  persecution  in  the  18th  century.  They  are  called 
the  Shamsiyah  ("Sun-people"),  and  consist  of  about  a  hundred  families, 
who  live  in  a  special  quarter  of  the  town.  They  conform  to  all  Jacobite  law, 
but  also  keep  their  own  pagan  observances.  See  Silbernagl  :  op.  cit. 
315-316. 

2  Assemani  :   Bibl.  Or.  ii.  (Diss,  de  Mon.)  §  v. 

3  See  Harnack  :  Lehrbuch  der  Dogmengeschichte  (4th  ed.,  Tubingen, 
1909),  pp.  408-412  ;  Kattenbusch  :  Confessionskunde,  p.  223.  (He 
says  :    "  The  Coptic  Christ  is  a  mere  Wonder-being.*') 

4  Lit.  Orient.  Coll.  ii.  72.  Parry  says  they  hold  "  a  position  half  way 
between  those  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans,"  about  the  procession  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  (Six  Months,  p.  355). 


THE  JACOBITES  343 

They  do  not  circumcise.  It  is  an  absurd  calumny  that  instead  of 
baptism  they  ever  branded  children  in  the  cheek  with  a  hot  iron.1 
They  have  had  strange  ideas  about  the  Holy  Eucharist ;  Barhe- 
braeus  thinks  that  there  is  a  hypostatic  union  between  the  bread 
and  wine  and  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.2  If  we  add  to  this 
the  Monophysite  idea  about  hypostatic  union,  we  have  a  very 
strange  position.  They  believe  that  the  Epiklesis  consecrates. 
They  were  once  really  defenders  of  Confession,  as  they  showed 
at  the  time  of  Mark  ibn  alKanbar  3  (p.  241),  though  now  they 
practise  it  little.  But  now  we  come  to  an  appalling  possibility. 
We  saw  that  Baradai  was  ordained  bishop  secretly  at  Constanti- 
nople, and  then  himself  ordained  other  bishops  (p.  324).  All 
their  orders  come  from  him.  But  it  has  been  said,  not  without 
some  appearance  of  truth,  that  Baradai  was  never  ordained 
bishop,  but  only  priest.  So  Renaudot  doubts  all  Jacobite  orders 
on  this  account.4  However,  Assemani  thinks  his  doubt  un- 
necessary.5 Jacobites  pray  to  saints  and  for  the  dead,  as  do 
the  Copts.  They  deny  Purgatory,  but  have  a  theory  which 
comes  to  the  same  thing.  When  good  people  die  angels  take 
their  souls  to  the  earthly  Paradise  ;  bad  people  are  taken  by 
demons  somewhere  very  uncomfortable,  outside  the  inhabited 
world,  till  the  day  of  Judgement.  Yet  they  pray  already  to 
saints.6 

5.  Rites  and  Liturgy 

This  little  sect  owes  its  importance  to  its  rites.  The  Jacobites 
supply  an  excellent  example  showing  that  faith,  rite  and  litur- 
gical language  are  three  totally  different  things,  which  may  occur 
in  every  possible  combination.  For  in  faith  they  are  one  with 
the  Copts  ;  in  rite  they  are  poles  apart.  Their  rite  has  abso- 
lutely no  connection  with  the  Coptic  rite,  except  that  which 
joins  any  two  Christian  orders  of  service.     The  Jacobites,  almost 

1  Assemani :   loc.  cit.  §  v.  2  lb.     Cf.  Parry  :    op.  cit.  355. 

3  Although  they  condemned  Mark  they  defended  Confession.  Dionysius 
Bar  Salibi  wrote  :  "  Canons  concerning  the  manner  of  receiving  a  penitent 
in  the  Sacrament  of  Confession,"  and  an  "  Order  "  (Taksa)  for  administering 
the  Sacrament.     These  are  printed  in  Assemani:  Bibl.  Or.  ii.  171-174. 

4  Lit.  Orient.  Coll.  i.  345-346.  5  Loc.  cit.  §  v.  6  lb. 


344        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

alone  in  Christendom,1  use  the  other  great  parent-rite  of  the  East. 
As  the  Copts  keep  the  old  rite  of  Alexandria,  so  do  the  Jacobites 
keep  that  of  Antioch,  the  parent  of  the  Byzantine  and  Armenian 
liturgies.  In  rite,  therefore,  the  Jacobites  stand  much  nearer 
to  their  enemies  the  Orthodox.  And  in  language  they  are  one 
with  their  extreme  enemies  of  all — the  Nestorians.  In  the  East 
you  can  never  determine  a  man's  rite  by  the  language  in  which 
he  says  it,2  nor  his  religion  by  his  rite.3 

There  is  little  of  special  interest  to  see  in  a  Jacobite  church. 
They  do  not  have  the  Coptic  principle  of  three  altars  always  ; 
neither  have  they  the  Byzantine  rule  of  one  only.  Generally 
there  is  only  one  ;  but  in  larger  churches  there  may  be  one  or 
more  side-chapels  with  an  altar.  They  seem  to  have  no  rule 
about  an  ikonostasion  or  haikal-screen.  I  have  seen  many 
churches  in  which  there  is  no  screen  at  all.4  In  others  (at  Damas- 
cus, etc.)  there  is  an  ikonostasion,  copied,  I  suppose,  from  the 
Orthodox.  But  there  should  always  be  at  least  a  curtain  before 
the  altar.  In  front  of  the  sanctuary  stand  one  or  two  lecterns. 
There  are  the  usual  pictures,  but  poor  and  uninteresting  as  a 
rule.5  The  Syrians  are  not  an  artistic  folk.  Their  churches 
have  nothing  of  the  archaeological  interest  of  Coptic  churches.6 
Also  they  have  been  much  affected  by  Orthodox  and  Byzantine 
influence.  They  call  the  sanctuary  Madbkhd  (literally,  "  altar  "). 
On  their  altars  stand  the  gospel-book,  vessels,  crosses  and  candles. 
Their  vestments  are  :  for  a  bishop,  the  alb  (kuthina),7  apparently 

1  Except  that  the  Orthodox  use  the  Antiochene  rite  in  two  churches, 
once  a  year  in  each  (Orth.  Eastern  Church,  p,  395,  n.  1),  and,  of  course, 
the  Syrian  Uniates  have  the  same  rite  as  their  heretical  brethren,  and  the 
Maronites  have  a  form  of  it. 

2  Hence  the  never  to  be  sufficiently  denounced  absurdity  of  talking 
about  the  "  Greek  rite." 

3  Neither  can  you  in  the  West.  A  Jansenist  uses  the  Roman  rite  in 
Latin  ;  a  Milanese  Catholic  has  the  Ambrosian  rite  ;  in  Dalmatia  Catholics 
use  the  Roman  rite  in  Slavonic.  In  short,  every  possible  combination  of 
religion,  rite  and  language  occurs. 

4  E.g.  in  their  church  at  Beirut. 

5  There  seems  to  be  a  Protestantizing  movement  against  pictures  among 
them  now.     See  Parry  :    Six  Months,  191. 

6  Parry  gives  descriptions  and  plans  of  Jacobite  churches  (Six  Months, 
328-337). 

7  From  x'tc^. 


THE   JACOBITES  345 

always  white,  amice  (masnaftha),1  girdle,  stole  (urara),2  epi- 
manikia  (zende),  phainolion  (faina),3  omophorion  (also  called 
urara).  He  carries  a  pastoral  staff,  like  that  of  the  Copts  and 
Byzantines.  Does  a  Jacobite  bishop  (or  even  the  Patriarch) 
wear  a  crown  or  mitre  ?  Assemani  says  not.4  On  the  other 
hand,  the  crowning  of  the  bishop  forms  a  conspicuous  part  of 
his  ordination  rite.5  I  am  not  sure,  but  I  am  inclined  to  think 
that  the  use  of  the  crown  has  disappeared,6  especially  since  Uniate 
Syrian  bishops  have  a  Roman  mitre,  presumably  in  default  of 
one  of  their  own  rite.  The  priest  wears  the  alb,  amice,  girdle, 
stole,  zende,  faina  ;  the  deacon  has  only  an  alb  and  a  stole  (of 
a  different  shape)  from  the  left  shoulder,  as  in  the  Coptic  rite 
(p.  272).  The  celebrant,  whether  priest  or  bishop,  wears  a  black 
cap  with  white  crosses.  There  are  no  fixed  liturgical  colours. 
It  will  be  seen,  then,  that  their  vestments  (except  for  the  mitre) 
are  the  same  as  those  of  the  Copts  (pp.  272-274).  In  ordinary 
life  the  clergy  wear  a  black  or  dark  cassock  ('aba')  and  a  pecu- 
liarly shaped  black  turban,  which  may  be  seen  in  fig.  12,  p.  339. 
The  Patriarch  wears  a  gold  pectoral  cross,  and,  on  state  occasions, 
a  scarlet  'aba'. 

The  holy  liturgy  is  the  old  rite  of  Jerusalem-Antioch,  called 
the  Liturgy  of  St.  James,  in  Syriac.7  This  came  originally  from 
Jerusalem  to  Antioch,  there  displaced  the  pure  Antiochene  use 
(of  which  it  is  itself  a  modified  form),  and  from  the  Patriarchal 
city  spread  throughout  Syria.  It  is  the  most  prolific  of  all  rites, 
and  has  a  large  family  of  daughter  liturgies.  Of  these  the  wide- 
spread Byzantine  rite  is  the  best  known.  What  happened  in 
Syria  is  just  as  in  Egypt  (pp.  275-276).     The  Greek  form  of  St. 


1  The  bishop  at  ordination  receives  a  masnaftha  (Denzinger  :  Ritus 
Orient,  ii.  93,  157). 

2  wpdpiov.      It  has  the  form  of  the  Byzantine  epitrachelion. 

3  Now  shaped,  as  among  the  Copts,  like  our  cope  (p.  273). 

4  Bibl.  Or.  ii.  (Diss,  de  Mon.)  §  viii.  (=vii.). 

5  Denzinger  :  op.  cit.  ii.  93.  His  "  crown  "  appears  to  be  the  masnaftha, 
richly  embroidered. 

6  Etheridge  (op.  cit.  147)  says  the  Jacobites  have  no  mitre. 

7  The  Jacobite  services  are  in  the  West-Syriac  dialect,  and  their  books  are 
written  in  Serta  characters.  Both  are  slightly  (only  slightly)  different 
from  those  of  the  Nestorians. 


346        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

James'  liturgy  is  older  ;  x  it  was  soon  translated  into  Syriac, 
certainly  before  the  Monophysite  schism.  At  first  it  was  used 
in  Greek  or  Syriac  indifferently.  Then  the  Orthodox  kept 
the  Greek  form,2  the  Jacobites  used  only  Syriac.  The  Greek 
form  was  gradually  Byzantinized  in  various  details  ;  in  the  13th 
century  the  Orthodox  abandoned  it  altogether  and  adopted  the 
Byzantine  rite.3  So  the  rite  of  Antioch,  once  so  mighty  in  the 
East,  became  the  speciality  of  one  little  sect  only.4  Bar  Salibi 
gives  a  curious  account  of  its  origin.  It  is  the  oldest,  the  most 
apostolic  of  all.  On  Whitsunday  the  apostles  received  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  the  next  day  they  consecrated  the  chrism,  on  Tuesday 
they  consecrated  an  altar,  on  Wednesday  St.  James,  the  brother 
of  the  Lord,  celebrated  this  liturgy,  and,  when  he  was  asked 
whence  he  had  taken  it,  he  said  :  "As  the  Lord  lives,  I  have 
neither  added  nor  taken  away  anything  from  what  I  heard  from 
our  Lord."  5 

Some  Greek  forms  remain  in  the  Syriac  liturgy  :  "  s turner) - 
kalus,"6  "  kurye  elaisun,"  "  sufiya,"  "  prushumen  "  ;  but  it  is 
not  riddled  with  Greek  formulas  as  is  that  of  the  Copts.  The 
essential  Jacobite  liturgy  consists  of  the  Ordo  communis,  that  is, 
all  up  to  the  anaphora  and  the  prayers  after  communion,  and 
the  anaphora — all  of  St.  James,  corresponding  to  the  Greek  St. 
James.  Then  they  have  a  bewildering  number  of  alternative 
anaphoras,  which  they  may  substitute  for  that  of  St.  James. 
There  seems  to  be  some  strange  tendency  which  causes  just  the 
smallest  Churches  to  compose  a  multitude  of  anaphoras.  The 
enormous  Roman  patriarchate  is  content  with  one  canon  all  the 

1  Printed  in  Brightman  :   Eastern  Liturgies,  pp.  31-68. 

2  Though  they  used  Syriac  very  considerably,  too,  down  to  the  18th 
century.  Even  after  they  had  adopted  the  Byzantine  rite,  they  said  it 
in  many  places  in  Syriac.  See  Charon  :  Le  rite  Byzantin,  in  XpvaoffrofxiKa 
(Rome,  1908),  pp.  499-501. 

3  Probably  under  the  influence  of  the  same  Theodore  Balsamon  who 
abolished  the  Greek  St.  Mark  rite  (p.  276  above  ;  see  Charon  :  op.  cit. 
pp.  492-493).  Greek  St.  James  is  used  now  again  twice  a  year  in  two 
Orthodox  churches  (above,  p.  344,  n.  1). 

4  More  about  the  Antiochene  rite  will  be  found  in  Baumstark  :  Die 
Messe  im  Morgenland,  pp.  28-47,  and  in  my  book  :    The  Mass,  pp.  80-93. 

5  Ed.  cit.  p.  36. 

6  Bar  Salibi,  by  the  way,  always  quotes  this  formula  in  Syriac  :  "  nkum 
shafir." 


THE   JACOBITES  347 

year  round  ;  the  widespread  Byzantine  rite  has  two.1  But 
when  we  come  to  these  small  sects  we  find  numbers.  The  Jacob- 
ites take  the  first  rank  easily  in  this  respect.  Brightman  gives 
the  titles  of  sixty-four,  besides  that  of  St.  James  ; 2  there  are 
probably  many  more  in  manuscript.  They  are  ascribed  to  all 
sorts  of  people :  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  St.  Mark,  St.  Peter, 
"  the  Roman  Church  "  (excerpts  from  our  Mass),  Dioscor,  Igna- 
tius of  Antioch,  Severus,  Barhebraeus,  and  so  on.  A  theory, 
once  popular,  is  that  originally  these  were  meant  to  be  used  on 
the  feasts  of  certain  saints,  then  by  mistake  were  supposed  to 
have  been  written  by  them.  This  is  now  abandoned.  There  is 
nothing  in  honour  of  the  saint  in  the  liturgy  ascribed  to  him, 
and  no  evidence  that  it  was  used  on  his  feast.  Many  are  attri- 
buted to  people  who  have  no  feast.  We  must  put  down  these 
wild  attributions  3  to  the  same  Syrian  genius  for  apocrypha  which 
produced  the  Clementine  romances  and  so  many  other  false  docu- 
ments. Most  of  these  alternative  anaphoras  are  based  upon  a 
quite  foreign  tradition,  have  no  connection  with  the  anaphora 
of  St.  James.  The  oldest  and  most  valuable,  containing  echoes 
of  very  ancient  Antiochene  forms,  exists  in  two  recensions  as- 
cribed to  St.  Ignatius  4  and  (probably  for  Syrians  in  Egypt)  St. 
Athanasius.5  Some  of  them  do  not  contain  the  words  of  institu- 
tion at  all,6  others  have  them  in  a  composite  and  deficient  form.7 
Some  (especially  the  late  ones)  are  very  long,  inflated  and  full 
of  bad  rhetoric.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  alternative  liturgies 
involve  not  only  a  special  anaphora,  but,  in  many  cases,  special 
forms  for  the  prayers  of  the  faithful  too.8 

An  interesting  question  is  how  far  the  Jacobites  use  their  multi- 
tude of  anaphoras.     I  think  that  very  few  occur  in  actual  practice. 

1  Not  counting  the  Presanctified  liturgy,  which  is  really  a  quite  different 
service.  2  Op.  cit.  pp.  lviii-lxii. 

3  Some  of  them  (to  later  Jacobite  leaders)  may  be  true. 

4  Renaudot  :   Lit.  Orient.  Coll.  ii.  214-226. 

5  Cf.  Baumstark  :   Die  Messe  im  Morgenland,  p.  44. 

6  E.g.  St.  Sixtus  :    Renaudot,  op.  cit.  ii.  134-142. 

7  Thomas  of  Heraclea,  ib.  p.  384.  This  anaphora  also  has  the  peculiarity 
that  its  prayers  are  alphabetical.  The  first  begins  with  Alaf,  the  second 
with  B6th,  and  so  on. 

8  Renaudot  (op.  cit.  ii.  126-560)  prints  thirty-seven  of  these  alternative 
anaphoras  with  a  note  on  each. 


348        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

The  celebrant  says  that  of  St.  James,  or  its  shorter  variant  form  ;x 
possibly,  on  rare  occasions,  one  or  two  of  the  others  may  be  said. 
But  most  apparently  slumber  unused  in  manuscripts.  Since 
the  15th  century,  as  Syriac  more  and  more  became  a  dead  lan- 
guage to  most  Jacobites,  there  has  been  a  great  invasion  of 
Arabic  in  their  liturgy.  Now  the  lessons,  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
many  pro-anaphoral  prayers  and  hymns  are  in  Arabic,  written 
sometimes  in  Karshuni.2 

The  order  of  St.  James's  liturgy  (in  its  Jacobite  form)  is  this : 
The  celebrant  and  deacon  say  preparatory  prayers,  vest,  prepare 
the  altar  and  lay  the  bread3  and  wine  on  it.  Then  comes  the 
offertory  of  the  gifts  ;  they  are  veiled.  The  Liturgy  of  the  Cate- 
chumens begins  with  a  sedra  ("  order  ").  This  is  a  very  common 
form  of  prayer  in  this  rite.  It  consists  (in  theory)  of  a  fixed 
framework  (normally  verses  of  a  psalm)  interspersed  with  short 
changeable  prayers,  much  as  our  Invitatorium  at  Matins.  It 
always  has  an  introduction  (prumyun,  Trpootfjaov) .  But  often 
the  framework  is  left  out.  The  sedra  is  always  said  at  the  altar 
by  the  celebrant,  while  the  deacon  swings  the  thurible.  Then 
comes  a  general  incensing,  with  prayers.  The  lessons  follow. 
There  are  four,  from  the  Old  Testament,  Acts  (or  a  Catholic 
Epistle),  St.  Paul,  the  Gospel.  Between  each  is  a  Prokeimenon 
or  Gradual,  while  the  celebrant  in  a  low  voice  says  a  prayer. 
Before  the  second  lesson  comes  the  Trisagion  with  the  Mono- 
physite  clause  (p.  190) ;  before  the  Gospel  Haleluya  thrice  with  a 
verse,  while  they  make  the  Little  Entrance.4  There  is  now  no 
dismissal  of  Catechumens.5  The  Liturgy  of  the  Faithful  begins 
with  a  sedra  (prayers  of  the  faithful)  6  and  incensing  ;  the  creed 

1  Renaudot,  ii.  126-132. 

2  There  is  no  mystery  about  Karshuni.  It  is  simply  Arabic  written  in 
Syriac  letters,  as  Jews  write  Yiddish  in  Hebrew  letters.  It  began  by 
Syrians  hearing  and  talking  Arabic,  but  not  being  able  to  write  it.  Now 
it  has  become  a  tradition  among  Jacobites,  Uniate  Syrians  and  Maronites. 

3  The  bread  is  leavened,  mixed  with  salt  and  oil,  and  with  a  portion  of 
old  "  holy  leaven,"  as  among  the  Nestorians  (p.  150). 

4  Bar  Salibi  (Latin  version  of  Labourt,  ed.  cit.),  46. 

5  Bar  Salibi  knows  an  elaborate  dismissal  of  catechumens,  energumens, 
penitents  (ib.  47-48).     This  still  exists  in  Renaudot's  version  :   ii.  10. 

6  Bar  Salibi  (p.  50)  here  describes  a  procession  round  the  church  with 
the  offerings  (which  have  lain  on  the  altar  since  the  beginning).     It  seems 


THE   JACOBITES  349 

follows.  The  celebrant  washes  his  hands  and  prays  for  whom  he 
will.  Then  come  the  kiss  of  peace  and  "  prayer  of  the  veil  " 
(as  he  unveils  the  oblata).  The  Anaphora  begins  by  the  deacon 
crying  out  :  "  Stand  we  fairly."  1  The  people  answer  :  "  Mercies, 
peace,  a  sacrifice  of  praise."  The  celebrant  gives  a  blessing  (in  the 
words  of  2  Cor.  xiii.  14).  R. :  "  And  with  thy  spirit."  Celebrant : 
"  The  minds  and  hearts  of  all  of  us  be  on  high."  R. :  "  They  are 
with  the  Lord  our  God."  Celebrant :  "  Let  us  give  thanks  to  the 
Lord  with  fear  and  worship  with  trembling."  R.  :  "  It  is  meet 
and  right."  Celebrant  (in  a  low  voice)  :  2  "It  is  very  meet,  right, 
fitting,  and  our  bounden  duty  to  praise  thee,  to  bless  thee,  to 
celebrate  thee,  to  worship  thee,  to  give  thanks  to  thee,  the  creator 
of  every  creature,  visible  and  invisible  "  (aloud)3  "  whom  the 
heavens  and  the  heavens  of  heavens  praise  and  all  the  hosts  of 
them,  the  sun  and  the  moon  and  all  the  choir  of  the  stars,  the 
earth  and  the  sea  and  all  that  is  in  them,  the  heavenly  Jerusalem, 
the  Church  of  the  first-born  who  are  written  in  heaven  ..." 
So  he  comes  to  the  angels  ;  the  people  take  up  the  Sanctus,  to 
which  they  add  "  Benedictus,"  etc.,  as  in  our  Mass.  Now, 
almost  at  once,  follow  the  words  of  institution,  said  aloud  (to 
which  the  people  answer  Amen),  the  Anamnesis  and  Epiklesis 
(also  aloud,  answered  by  Amen).  A  long  Intercession  follows, 
in  the  characteristic  Antiochene  place.  The  deacon  prays  in 
litany  form  for  the  Church,  patriarch,  metropolitan,  for  the  clergy 
and  people,  kings  and  princes,  he  remembers  "  her  who  is  to  be 
called  blessed  and  glorified  of  all  generations  of  the  earth,  holy 
and  blessed  and  ever  virgin,  Mother  of  God,  Mary,"  and  other 
saints ;  he  prays  for  the  dead.  To  each  clause  the  people  say, 
"  Kurye  elaisun  "  ;  meanwhile  the  celebrant  prays  to  the  same 
effect,  ending  each  division  of  his  prayer  aloud.  There  is  a 
blessing,  then  the  Fraction,  during  which  the  deacon  sums  up 

a  rather  meaningless  imitation  of  the  Byzantine  Great  Entrance.  The 
Greek  St.  James  has  a  real  Great  Entrance,  with  the  chant  ^.iynadru  (a 
Byzantine  infiltration).     Brightman,  p.  41. 

1  In  Syriac  here. 

2  Syr.  :   ghanta  (lit.  "  inclination  "),  is  the  rubric  for  prayers  said  in  a 
low  voice  by  the  celebrant  as  he  bows  down  (  =  fivariK&s) . 

3  Syr.  :  tlitha  (lit.  "  erect  "),  means  a  prayer  said  aloud  by  the  celebrant, 
standing  erect  (  =  e/c^&jj/Tjcm). 


350        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

the  Intercession  in  a  long  prayer,  called  Kathuliki,  for  all  sorts 
and  conditions  of  men.  This  is  closed  by  the  Lord's  Prayer  said 
by  all  (in  Arabic),1  the  celebrant  saying  a  rather  longer  intro- 
duction than  usual  and  a  short  embolism  (in  Syriac).  The 
Inclination  follows  (Deacon  :  "  Let  us  bow  our  heads  to  the 
Lord."  R.  :  "  Before  thee,  O  Lord  our  God  "),2  and  the  Eleva- 
tion (Celebrant :  "  The  holies  to  the  holy."3  R. :  "  The  one  Father 
is  holy,  the  one  Son  is  holy,  the  one  Spirit  is  holy/'  Meanwhile 
he  elevates  first  the  paten  then  the  chalice).  Here  the  celebrant 
marks  the  holy  bread  with  the  consecrated  wine  and  then  dips 
it  into  the  chalice.  The  particle  received  in  Communion  is  called 
the  "  coal  "  (gmurtha),  in  allusion  to  Isa.  vi.  6,  or  the  "  pearl  " 
(marganitha,  cf.  Matt.  vii.  6).  The  celebrant  himself  receives 
such  a  fragment  (intincted),  then  drinks  of  the  chalice.  Lay 
people  receive  a  fragment  intincted  only  (with  a  spoon).  There 
seems  some  uncertainty  (or  variety  of  practice)  as  to  the  way 
the  deacon  or  assisting  clergy  make  their  Communion.4  I  believe 
they  now  usually  receive  an  intincted  particle  only,  and  do  not 
drink  directly  of  the  chalice.  The  Communion  formula  is  : 
"  The  propitiatory  coal  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  our  God 
is  given  to  N.N.  for  the  pardon  of  his  offences  and  the  remission 
of  his  sins.  His  prayers  be  with  us.  Amen."  After  Communion 
follow  a  thanksgiving  prayer,  a  blessing,  and  the  dismissal.5  After 
the  liturgy  the  celebrant  consumes  what  is  left  of  the  Blessed 
Sacrament  (they  do  not  reserve),  and  there  is  a  distribution  of 
blessed  bread  (burktha).  This  liturgy  is  one  of  the  most  beauti- 
ful in  Christendom.  Strange  that  an  insignificant  little  sect 
should  possess  so  splendid  a  liturgical  tradition.  But  the  modern 
Jacobites  are  not  worthy  of  their  inheritance.  Their  once  bril- 
liant school  of  liturgical  scholars  came  to  an  end  long  ago.     Now 

1  I  believe  the  Jacobites  always  say  the  Our  Father  in  Arabic  (I  have 
always  heard  it  so).  The  Uniate  Syrians  certainly  do.  It  is  in  Arabic  in  : 
Ktdbd  dteshmeshtd  dkurdbd  (Mosul,  1881,  p.  32). 

2  In  noticing  the  many  resemblances  and  identical  forms  in  this  rite  and 
that  of  Byzantium,  we  must  always  remember  that  this  is  the  parent  from 
which  the  Byzantine  rite  is  derived. 

3  Kudshe  lkaddishe.  4  Renaudot  :    op.  cit.  ii.  120-123. 

5  Brightman  :  Eastern  Liturgies,  69-100.  Cf.  Renaudot :  Lit.  Orient.  Coll. 
ii.  1-44  (there  are  differences  between  the  forms). 


THE  JACOBITES  35* 

their  priests  hurry  through  a  service,  in  a  language  they  hardly 
understand,1  with  gross  carelessness. 

The  Jacobite  Divine  Office  is  also  very  ancient  in  form  and 
very  interesting.  Since  Dr.  Anthony  Baumstark's  publications 
about  it,2  it  may  easily  be  studied.  They  have  the  usual  hours  : 
Vespers  (ramsha) ;  Nocturn  (lelya)  ;  Morning  office  (safra,  opOpos, 
more  or  less  our  Lauds) ;  and  day  hours  for  the  third,  sixth,  and 
ninth  hours  (not  for  the  first).  Their  Compline  (suttara,  "pro- 
tection ")  is  a  later  addition.  The  essence  of  this  office  is  natur- 
ally the  psalter,  sung  in  the  old  Antiochene  order.  It  contains 
also  lessons  (Biblical  and  legends  of  saints),  hymns  (sedre,  p.  348 
and  'enyane),3  prayers,  and  so  on.4  The  Jacobite  Calendar  also 
represents  the  old  order  of  Antioch.  They  follow  the  Julian 
reckoning.  The  year  begins  on  the  first  of  October.  From 
December  1  they  have  a  fast  (Advent)  in  preparation  for  Christ- 
mas. Five  Sundays  before  Christmas  they  begin  to  prepare  for 
it  in  their  prayers.  Christmas  (Beth  yalda,  December  25)  and 
Epiphany  (Beth  denha,  January  6)  follows,  as  with  us.  The 
"  praise  of  the  Mother  of  God  "  is  December  26,  Holy 
Innocents  December  27,  St.  Stephen  January  8.  Candlemas 
comes  on  February  2.  The  last  two  Sundays  before  Lent 
are  for  the  dead,  the  first  for  the  clergy,  the  second  for  the 
laity.  The  last  week  before  Lent  is  the  "  fast  of  Ninive  " 
(p.  287).  The  seventh  Sunday  before  Easter  is  "  of  the  ap- 
proach of  the  fast  "  ;  the  great  fast  (Lent)  begins  forty  days 
before  Palm  Sunday.  Holy  Week,  Easter,  Ascension  day  and 
Whitsunday  follow  as  usual.  Before  the  death  (Shunnaya)  of 
the  Mother  of  God  (August  15),  and  the  Princes  of  the  Apostles 
(June  29)  they  fast,  like  the  Copts  (p.  287) .     Scattered  throughout 

1  For  the  training  of  the  Jacobite  clergy  often  means  merely  the  power 
to  read  and  pronounce  Syriac  words,  without  any  real  study  of  the 
language.  The  Uniates  are,  naturally,  much  better  equipped.  Their 
Patriarch  is  a  great  scholar. 

2  Das  Syrisch-Antiochenische  Ferialbrevier  in  the  Katholik  (Mainz)  1902, 
ii.  401-427,  538-550;  1903,  i.  43-54;  and:  Festbrevier  u.  Kirchenjahr 
der  Syrischen  Jakobiten  (Paderborn,  1910). 

3  The  'enyana  ("response,"  from  'na,  "to  hear,")  corresponds  to  the 
Byzantine  Kavwi/ ;   Baumstark  :  Festbrevier,  69-77. 

4  Further  details  in  Baumstark  :    op.  cit. 


352    THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

the  year  are  saints'  days,  naturally  many  of  their  own.1  We 
noticed  that  the  Jacobite  rite  is  almost  the  only  thing  of  impor- 
tance about  them.  That  and  the  memory  of  their  former  scholars 
still  give  a  certain  dignity  to  this  little  sect. 

Summary 

James  Baradai,  ordained  by  stealth  in  Constantinople  in  the 
6th  century,  built  up  a  Monophysite  Church  in  Syria,  called 
(after  him)  Jacobite.  Under  the  empire  the  Jacobites  were  per- 
secuted ;  since  Islam  rules  in  their  country  (since  the  7th  century) 
they  share  the  usual  conditions  of  a  tolerated  subject  Christian 
"  nation."  In  the  Middle  Ages  they  had  scholars  of  distinction, 
notably  the  famous  Mafrian  Barhebraeus  ;  they  had  an  excellent 
school  of  liturgical  science,  and,  on  the  whole,  they  got  on  fairly 
well  with  other  Christian  bodies.  They  have  one  Patriarch  (of 
Antioch)  ;  under  him  the  Mafrian  ruled  their  communities  in 
Persia  and  East  Syria,  where  they  became  formidable  rivals  of 
the  Nestorians.  They  were  never  a  very  large  body  ;  since  the 
14th  century  they  have  dwindled,  and  are  now  quite  a  small, 
poor,  backward,  scattered  sect.  They  dwell  chiefly  in  Mesopo- 
tamia, round  about  Diyarbakr.  The  Mafrian  is  now  a  kind  of 
auxiliary  bishop  and  vicar-general  to  the  Patriarch.  In  faith 
the  Jacobites  agree  with  the  Copts,  though  in  earlier  times  their 
Monophysism  was  less  pronounced.  They  have  always  been  less 
opposed  to  the  Orthodox.  Their  rite  is  quite  different.  It  is 
a  Syriac  form  of  the  ancient  Antiochene  rite,  with  the  liturgy 
attributed  to  St.  James  the  Less,  first  Bishop  of  Jerusalem.  To 
this  they  have  added  a  vast  and  heterogeneous  collection  of  other 
anaphoras,  not,  however,  much  used  now.  Their  office  and 
calendar  also  represent  the  old  rite  of  Antioch.  These  are  the 
chief  points  of  interest  in  their  Church. 

1  For  the  Calendar  see  Baumstark  :  Festbrevier,  pp.  159-288,  and 
Nilles  :  Kalend.  Man.  459-483.  Parry  gives  accounts  of  a  modern  Jacobite 
wedding  (Six  Months,  246-248),  and  funeral  (ib.  343-345). 


CHAPTER  XI 


THE   CHURCH   OF   MALABAR 


This  outlying  body  of  Christians  does  not  demand  a  lengthy 
treatment  here,  for  two  reasons.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  not 
really  a  special  Church  at  all.  The  Christians  of  Malabar  were 
originally  simply  one  of  the  many  missions  throughout  Asia 
founded  by  the  East  Syrians  or  Persians,  dependent  on  the 
Katholikos  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon.  They  followed  their  mother- 
Church  into  Nestorianism,  used  the  same  rite  as  she  did,  and 
were  merely  a  distant  portion  of  the  Nestorian  Church.  Later 
came  relations  with  the  Jacobites.  But  again  the  Malabar 
Christians  who  submitted  to  the  Jacobite  Patriarch  became 
simply  Jacobites  in  India.  In  no  case  has  Malabar  itself  any- 
thing to  justify  our  reckoning  it  as  a  special  Church,  except  its 
geographical  position.  Secondly,  in  its  history  the  only  important 
event  is  its  reunion  with  Rome  under  the  Portuguese  in  the 
16th  century.  The  majority  of  these  people  are  still  Uniates. 
The  story  of  that  union  and  account  of  the  Uniates  belong  to 
our  next  volume.  Here  it  will  be  enough  to  give  an  outline  of 
the  origin  of  Christianity  in  Malabar  and  some  account  of  the 
schismatical  Christians  there. 


i.  The  Foundation  of  the  Church 

When  the  Portuguese  fleet  under  Vasco  da  Gama  sailed  into 
East  Indian  waters  in  1498,  the  sailors  found  flourishing  Christian 
communities  established  along  the  south-western  coast  of  India, 

23 


354        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

from  Calicut  down  to  Cape  Comorin.  These  people  had  a 
hierarchy  under  a  Metropolitan,  churches  and  shrines.  Their 
services  were  in  Syriac.  They  said  that  they  descended  from 
Christians  converted  by  the  Apostle  Thomas  ;  they  called  them- 
selves with  pride  the  "  Christians  of  St.  Thomas." 

This  is  the  local  tradition,  still  firmly  held  by  all  the  Malabar 
Christians,  whether  Catholic  or  schismatical.  They  hold,  as  a 
point  of  honour,  that  they  are  an  apostolic  Church  ;  they  show 
still  the  tomb  of  St.  Thomas,  and  are  exceedingly  offended  by 
the  other  account  of  their  origin,  namely,  that  their  Christianity 
comes  from  Nestorian  missionaries.  This  brings  us  to  a  much- 
discussed  legend,  that  of  the  alleged  Indian  mission  of  St.  Thomas. 
There  is  a  considerable  literature,  Syriac  in  source,  which  tells 
(with  variants)  a  detailed  story  of  the  journeys  of  St.  Thomas 
the  Apostle  throughout  Asia.  Some  versions  make  him  go  as 
far  as  Pekin  and  found  a  Church  in  China.  In  all,  he  appears  as 
an  Eastern  parallel  to  St.  Paul  in  Europe.1  As  his  companion, 
in  many  versions,  St.  Bartholomew  appears.  The  constant  root 
of  the  story  is  that  St.  Thomas  came  to  Parthia,  converted  a 
Parthian  king  named  Gondophares,  or  Gundaphor,  who  reigned 
over  part  of  India,  that  he  established  a  flourishing  Church  in 
this  king's  domain.  There  are  many  additions  ;  the  story  is  full 
of  fantastic  details.  As  far  as  we  are  now  concerned,  the  points 
to  mention  are  that  the  Apostle  is  said  to  have  preached  the 
gospel  in  the  island  of  Socotra,  to  have  then  passed  over  to 
Cranganore  on  the  western  coast  of  India,  where  there  were  many 
Jews,  to  have  converted  Jews  and  heathen,  built  churches,  and 
left  a  hierarchy  ordained  by  himself.  Then  he  went  across  India 
to  Mailapur  (now  a  suburb  of  Madras),  preached  there,  was 
attacked  by  the  Brahmins,  martyred  by  being  stoned  and  pierced 
by  a  javelin  on  a  hill  still  called  St.  Thomas's  Mount,  and  was 

1  Among  the  many  sources  of  this  legend  of  St.  Thomas  the  chief  is  a 
Gnostic  document  (originally  in  Syriac)  known  as  the  Acta  Thomcs.  It 
was  apparently  composed  in  the  middle  of  the  3rd  century.  Eusebius 
quotes  it  (Hist.  Eccl.  hi.,  25),  also  Epiphanius  (Hcer.  xlvii.  1  ;  P.G.  xli. 
852),  and  many  others,  down  to  Gregory  of  Tours  (Miracul.  liber,  i.  32  ; 
P.L.  lxxi.  733).  See  Bonnet:  Acta  Thomcs  (Leipzig,  1883),  Germann  : 
Die  Kirche  der  Thomaschristen  (Gutersloh,  1877),  pp.  11-47,  and  Harnack  : 
Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Liter atur ,\\.  i.  (Leipzig,  1897),  545-549,  for  an  account 
of  the  legend. 


THE  CHURCH   OF  MALABAR  355 

buried  there.  Later,  his  relics  were  taken  to  Edessa.1  One's 
first  inclination  is  perhaps  to  reject  the  whole  story  without  more 
ado.  We  know  the  anxiety  of  local  Churches  all  over  the  world 
to  claim  a  direct  apostolic  foundation  ;  we  know,  too,  how  little 
credit  can  be  given  to  apocryphal  acts  of  apostles,  such  as  abound 
in  Gnostic  literature.  On  the  other  hand,  a  rather  better  case 
than  one  might  think  can  be  made  for  an  Indian  mission  of  St. 
Thomas.  Not  only  from  these  Acta  Thornce,  but  from  a  great 
number  of  apparently  independent  sources,  we  have  a  constant 
tradition  that  he  preached  in  India.2  It  is  true  that  "  India  " 
is  a  very  vague  term  in  early  Christian  literature.  It  may  mean 
Arabia  or  even  Ethiopia.  Yet,  at  least  in  many  of  these,  it  is 
clear  that  what  we  know  as  India  is  meant.3  The  authenticity 
of  this  tradition  has  been  again  defended  by  Father  Joseph 
Dahlmann,  S.J.,  who  points  out  that  the  name  of  the  Parthian 
king  Gundaphor  is  now  established,  that  since  Alexander  the 
Great  the  road  to  India  was  easy  from  Syria,  that  there  was 
continual  intercourse  between  Parthia,  India  and  the  West  in 
the  1st  century,  and  that  there  are  many  reasons  which  show 
that  at  least  the  kernel  of  the  tradition  is  not  improbable.4 
But  even  if  we  admit  in  general  a  mission  of  St.  Thomas  to  Parthia 
and  to  a  state  in  Northern  India,  this  still  leaves  his  alleged 
foundation  of  a  Church  in  Malabar  very  doubtful.  It  is  a  far 
cry  from  a  Parthian  kingdom  in  North  India  to  the  south-western 
coast.  To  deduce  that  St.  Thomas  was  in  Malabar,  because  he 
was  at  the  court  of  Gundaphor,  is  like  saying  that  St.  Paul  came 
to  Britain  because  he  was  in  Spain.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
tradition  of  Thomas  in  India  would  naturally  be  appropriated 

1  There  is  a  constant  tradition  that  the  Apostle's  relics  were  brought  to 
Edessa,  so  that  at  Mailapur  is  only  an  empty  grave,  before  which,  however, 
miracles  were  worked  (Rufinus  :  Hist.  Eccl.  ii.  5  ;  P.L.  xxi.  513  ;  Socrates  : 
Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  18  ;  P.G.  lxvii.  504  ;  Sozomenos  :  Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  18  ;  P.G. 
lxvii.  1336)  ;    Gregory  of  Tours,  loc.  cit. 

2  Germann  (loc.  cit.),  etc. 

3  So  St.  Jerome,  who  says  that  Pantaenus  preached  in  India  where  St. 
Bartholomew  had  been  (De  vir.  illustr.  36),  in  another  place  says  that  in 
India  he  preached  to  "  the  Brahmins  and  philosophers  of  that  people  " 
(Ep.  lxx.  ad  Magn.  Orat.  ;   P.L.  xxii.  667). 

4  Die  Thomas-Legende  (Herder,  1912).  See  Fr.  H.  Thurston,  S.J.,  in  the 
Month  for  August,  1912  ("Christianity  in  the  Far  East,"  pp.  153-163). 


356        THE  LESSER  EASTERN  CHURCHES 

by  any  Christian  communities  in  that  vast  land.  We  must  leave 
the  apostolic  origin  of  Malabar  Christianity  as  a  very  doubtful 
legend. 

But  the  "  Christians  of  St.  Thomas  "  are  right  when  they  protest 
against  being  described  as  a  Nestorian  mission.  It  is,  I  think, 
certain  that  their  Church  was  founded  by  East  Syrian  mission- 
aries ;  but  there  is  every  reason  to  suppose  that  this  was 
before  the  East  Syrian  Christians  had  turned  Nestorian.  Indian 
Christianity  was  always  dependent  on  the  people  who  became  the 
Nestorian  Church,  so  India  followed  its  mother  Church  into 
heresy.  But  there  was  Christianity  in  India  (and  along  the 
Malabar  coast)  before  Nestorius.  We  have  a  number  of  allusions 
to  this.  Even  allowing  for  the  inevitable  ambiguity  of  the  name 
"  India,"  we  can  trace  at  least  some  of  them  with  certainty  to 
Hindustan.  The  first  of  these  is  the  story  of  Pantaenus  (f  c.  200), 
the  celebrated  founder  of  the  Alexandrine  school  of  theology. 
Eusebius1  and  St.  Jerome2  tell  us  that  he  travelled  to  India, 
there  found  Christians  who  had  St.  Matthew's  gospel  in  Hebrew, 
and  that  St.  Bartholomew 3  had  preached  there.  There  is  already 
some  doubt  as  to  where  this  "  India  "  may  be.  Many  people 
think  it  is  Southern  Arabia  ;  but  Jerome,  at  any  rate,  means 
Hindustan.4  We  may  note  at  once  that  two  races  of  Jews, 
white  and  black,  have  for  a  very  long  time  been  established 
along  this  coast.5  If  they  were  there  first,  we  may  suppose  that 
the  faith  was  preached  in  the  first  instance  to  them,  and  this 
would  account  for  the  "  Hebrew  "  St.  Matthew,  meaning  a 
Syriac  version.6  The  "  John  of  all  Persia  and  great  India,"  in 
the  list  of  Fathers  of  Nicaea  (325),  is  possibly  a  mistake  (seep.  43 
above).  But  soon  after  the  council  there  was  a  Theophilus  of 
Diu,  of  whom  Philostorgius  tells.7  He  was  an  Indian  from  the 
island  Dibus   (Ai/3oi5s)  who  had  come  to  Constantinople  under 

1  Hist.  Eccl.  v.  10.  2  j)e  vjr^  Musty %  36. 

3  St.  Bartholomew  also  constantly  appears  as  the  other  apostle  of  India. 

4  See  above,  p.  355,  n.  3. 

5  Asiatic  Journal,  N.S.  vol.  vi.  (Sept.-Dec.  1831),  pp.  6-14. 

6  "  Hebrew  "  is  always  Syriac  (Aramaic)  in  such  cases,  as  in  Acts  xxi. 
40,  etc. 

7  In  the  fragments  of  his  history  preserved  by  Photius,  iii.  4-6  (P.G. 
lxv.  481-489). 


THE  CHURCH  OF  MALABAR  357 

Constantine,  and  had  adopted  Roman  manners.  He  was,  or 
became,  an  Arian.  The  Emperor  Constantius  (337-340)  sent 
him  to  Arabia  to  reform  the  Church  of  the  Christian  Sabaeans, 
or  "  Homeritae."  He  accomplished  this  mission  with  success. 
The  point  which  interests  us  here  is  his  origin.  Where  is  Dibus  ? 
It  seems  now  generally  agreed  that  it  is  Diu,  the  island  off  Guzerat.1 
Eventually  he  went  back  home  to  India  and  made  some  attempt 
to  propagate  Arianism  there.2  The  next  incident  of  which  we 
hear  comes  from  a  Malabar  tradition.  The  story  is  that,  in  the 
middle  of  the  4th  century,  a  Metropolitan  of  Edessa  had  a  vision 
(not  further  described,  but  presumably  about  the  needy  state  of 
a  distant  Church).  He  tells  his  vision  to  the  "  Katholikos  of  the 
East,"  who  summons  a  synod  to  discuss  the  matter.  At  the 
synod  a  merchant,  Thomas  of  Jerusalem,  rises  up  and  says  that 
he  knows  what  this  Church  is  :  he  has  heard  of  Christians  "  of 
Malabar  and  India."  So  the  Katholikos  sends  him  to  Malabar 
to  investigate.  He  comes  back  with  a  full  report.  Then  the 
Katholikos  sends  him  out  again  with  the  Bishop  of  Edessa,  who 
had  seen  the  vision,  with  many  priests,  deacons,  men,  women, 
boys  and  girls,  who  come  to  Malabar  in  the  year  345 .3  It  seems 
that  this  Thomas  the  merchant  of  Jerusalem  is  the  Thomas 
Cannaneo  of  whom  many  European  authors  write.4  "  Cannaneo  " 
would  be  the  Portuguese  form  of  the  name  they  heard,  which 
means  really  "  Canaanite,"  that  is/'  Palestinian."  Others  make 
him  an  Armenian,5  apparently  again  a  corruption  for  Aramaean.6 
"  Thomas  Cannaneo  "  plays  a  great  part  in  many  accounts  of 
the  origin  of  the  Malabar  Church.  He  appears  as  a  bishop  and 
a  reformer.  Some  think  that  he  is  the  founder  of  the  Church, 
the  real  Thomas,  later  confused  with  the  apostle.7     He  is  said 

1  Germann  (op.  cit.   p.  75)  quotes  Tillemont,  Fleury  and  many  others 
for  this. 

2  Meanwhile  he  had  been  to  Ethiopia.     For  all  this,  see  Philostorgius, 
loc.  cit. 

3  The  text  of  the  whole  story  is  in  Land  :  Anecdota  syriaca  (Leiden,  1862), 
i.  pp.  123-127. 

4  E.g.  Howard  :  The  Christians  of  St.  Thomas,  pp.  15-16 ;  see  Germann  : 
op.  cit.  92-93. 

5  Swanston  :  "A  memoir  of  the  primitive  Church  of  Malayala  "  (Journal 
of  the  Royal  Asiatic  Soc.  1834,  pp.  171-172). 

6  Germann  :  loc.  cit.  93.  7  See  Howard,  loc.  cit. 


358        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

to  have  introduced  the  East  Syrian  rite,  to  have  arrived  with  a 
great  colony  of  Syrians  and  to  have  introduced  Syrian  customs 
at  Malabar.  I  gather  that  the  legend  told  above  (in  which  he  is 
not  a  bishop,  but  arrives  with  a  Bishop  of  Edessa)  is  the  older 
one.  We  need  not  give  much  importance  to  the  details.  There 
does  not  appear  to  be  any  independent  tradition  of  a  Bishop  of 
Edessa  who  left  his  see  to  go  to  India  ;  all  about  Thomas  the 
merchant  of  Jerusalem,  or  Thomas  Cannaneo,  comes  only  from 
Malabar.  Yet  the  story  may  well  contain  an  important  kernel 
of  truth.1  In  the  4th  century  the  Persian  Christians  were  being 
cruelly  persecuted  (pp.  45-47) .  At  that  time  may  not  a  number 
of  them,  with  bishops  and  clergy,  have  fled  to  the  more  tolerant 
Hindu  princes  on  the  western  coast  of  India  ?  There  is  con- 
siderable evidence  of  some  such  migration  as  this  ; 2  it  forms  an 
interesting  parallel  to  the  Parsi  migration  to  India  after  the 
Moslem  conquest  of  their  land,  and  it  accounts  for  the  Syrian 
(and  later  the  Nestorian)  character  of  Malabar  Christianity. 

The  sum,  then,  of  what  we  know  about  the  introduction  of 
Christianity  in  South-Western  India  would  seem  to  be  this.  At 
some  unknown  period,  but  early,  probably  in  the  2nd  century, 
there  were  Christians  in  India.  They  had  come  either  overland 
from  East  Syria  or  by  sea  from  Arabia.  In  the  4th  century  a 
body  of  Christians  from  Persia  arrived  on  the  Malabar  coast. 
These  were  subjects  of  the  Persian  Metropolitan  ;  they  brought 
their  language  and  rites,  and  had  bishops  ordained  in  the  East 
Syrian  mother-Church.  So  Malabar  is  a  very  early,  perhaps  the 
earliest  case  of  those  wonderful  missions  throughout  Asia  which 
are  the  chief  glory  of  the  East  Syrian  Church.  Jews  and  Hindus 
were  converted  ;  so  a  missionary  Church,  dependent  on  the 
Katholikos  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon,  was  formed. 

2.  Before  the  Portuguese  Conquest 

From  the  4th  century  we  have  a  number  of  more  or  less  inci- 
dental allusions  which  show  us  a  Church  in  Malabar,  East  Syrian 

1  Assemani  (Bibl.  Orient.  :n.  part  ii.  443-444)  puts  the  story  much  later, 
in  the  9th  century,  and  tells  it  with  several  variants.  Germann  criticizes 
his  version,  I  think,  successfully :    op.  cit.  90-96. 

2  Germann  :  loc.  cit.  82-83. 


THE  CHURCH   OF  MALABAR  359 

in  character,  using  the  normal  East  Syrian  rite  and  dependent  on 
the  Katholikos  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon.  It  would  seem  that  its 
nucleus  consisted  of  Syrian  refugees  from  Persia.  The  bishops, 
in  the  earlier  period,  appear  to  be  all  Syrians  ordained  and  sent 
out  by  the  Katholikos.  There  is,  then,  a  certain  similarity 
between  Malabar  and  Abyssinia  (dependent  on  the  Patriarch  of 
Alexandria).  But  at  Malabar  there  was  no  attempt  to  adapt 
the  liturgy  to  the  language  of  the  country.  To  the  native 
converts  in  India  Syriac  was  as  foreign  a  language  as  Latin  to 
converts  in  England.  But  they  kept  the  liturgical  language  of 
the  mother  Church.  Another  parallel  to  Abyssinia  is  that  there 
was  only  one  bishop  in  Malabar.  The  Metropolitan  of  India, 
like  Abuna  in  Abyssinia,  had  no  suffragans.  It  may  be  that  for 
a  time  the  Manichees  obtained  a  footing  in  this  land.  Some 
writers,  notably  Theodoret  of  Cyrus,1  say  that  Mani  sent  a 
disciple  to  India.  We  shall  not  be  surprised  that  this  disciple 
is  said  to  have  borne  the  invariable  name  of  all  supposed  early 
Indian  missionaries.  He,  too,  was  called  Thomas.  Some  see  in 
this  an  explanation  of  the  whole  legend  of  the  Apostle  Thomas  ; 
it  would  be  a  Manichaean  forgery  ; 2  there  is  a  long  story  (com- 
plicated with  Buddha 3)  to  account  for  early  Christianity  in 
India.  Certainly,  the  Manichaean  idea  suggests  among  other 
influences  that  of  Hinduism  ;  and  there  is  evidence  of  Mani- 
chaeism  in  Ceylon  at  an  early  date.4  On  the  other  hand,  what  we 
know  of  Malabar  Christianity  shows  us  no  trace  of  Manichaeism. 
All  allusions  show  us  a  normal  Christian  Church  of  East  Syrian 
type,  and  then  Nestorianism.  We  have  no  indication  when 
Malabar  turned  Nestorian.  But  that  must  have  happened  in- 
evitably as  soon  as  East  Syria  adopted  the  heresy.  The  mission- 
ary daughter  Church  simply  followed  her  mother.  Since  the 
bishop  was  a  Syrian  sent  out  from  the  home  of  Nestorianism,  he 
would  bring  the  theology  of  his  sect  with  him  ;    the  converts 

1  Hceret.  Fab.  Comp.  i.  26  (P.G.  lxxxiii.  381). 

2  So  Tillemont,  quoted  by  Assemani  (Bibl.  Or.  III.  ii.  28) ;  Germann  (op.  cit. 
p.  100)  and  most  writers  now  reject  this  idea. 

3  His  name,  Gautama,  is  supposed  in  some  way  to  contain  the  name 
Thomas. 

4  So  G.  Flugel :    Mani,  seine  Lehre  u.  seine  Schriften  (Leipzig,  1862),  pp. 
85,  174- 


360        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

would  know  nothing  else.  Now,  we  are  reduced  to  one  or  two 
chance  allusions  to  Malabar.  Kosmas  Indikopleustes,  in  the  6th 
century,  found  "  Persian  Christians  "  in  India  ruled  by  a  Persian 
bishop  (p.  104).  About  the  same  time  another  traveller,  a 
Jacobite  Syrian  monk,  Bud  Periodeutes,1  also  found  Christians 
in  India  established  for  a  long  time.2  Their  dependence  on  the 
Nestorians  is  undoubted.  We  have  seen  the  letter  in  which 
Yeshu'yab,  the  Nestorian  Katholikos,  complains  that  Simon  of 
Yakut  neglects  the  missions  under  his  care  (7th  century,  p.  104). 
Among  these  is  that  of  India.3  The  Katholikos  Timothy  I 
(728-823,  see  pp.  94-96)  refers  on  several  occasions  to  the  flourish- 
ing Church  of  India,  subject  to  himself.4  Barhebraeus  tells  us 
that  in  the  time  of  this  Timothy  the  Metropolitan  of  Persia  would 
not  obey  him  as  Katholikos,  and  said  :  "  We  are  the  disciples 
of  Thomas  the  Apostle,  and  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  See  of 
Mari."  So  Timothy,  to  humble  his  pride  and  weaken  his  power, 
took  away  India  from  his  jurisdiction,  and  made  it  a  Metropolitan 
see  independent  of  anyone  but  himself.5  Assemani  thinks  that 
the  Thomas  whom  Timothy  ordained  with  others  and  sent  out 
as  missionaries  was  for  India.6  But  already  the  Malabar  people 
had  begun  that  strange  practice,  in  later  years  characteristic  of 
them,  of  sending  to  the  hereditary  enemies  of  their  Church,  the 
Monophysites,  for  bishops.  We  shall  see  this  astonishing  pro- 
ceeding on  a  much  larger  scale  later  (p.  365).  Meanwhile 
already,  in  the  6th  century,  they  made  approaches  to  the  Mono- 
physites, which,  however,  at  first  produced  no  result.7  In  the 
7th  century  the  same  thing  happened  again.  An  Indian  priest 
came  to  the   Coptic   Patriarch  Isaac  (686-689)  asking  him  to 

1  Bud  is  Ba'uth  ;  Periodeutes  is  an  office  of  the  Nestorians  and  Jacobites  ; 
a  "visitor"  (sa'aura,  p.  134). 

2  Assemani :    Bibl.  Orient,  ill.  part  i.  219. 

3  lb.  p.  438.  4  Labourt  :   De  Timotheo,  i.  pp.  41-42. 
5  Chronic.  Eccl.  ii.  172. 

8  Bibl.  Orient,  in.  part  ii.  444-445.  The  inevitable  name  Thomas  could,  in 
this  case,  easily  be  explained.  Nestorian  bishops  took  new  names  at  their 
ordination  (pp.  130,  132).  A  bishop  for  India  would  naturally  choose 
Thomas.  This  Thomas  is  mentioned  among  those  ordained  at  that  time  in 
Thomas  of  Marga  :  Book  of  Governors  (see  p.  112),  iv.  20  (ed.  Wallis  Budge, 
vol.  ii.  p.  447). 

7  Germann  :  op.  cit.  148-149. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  MALABAR  361 

ordain  a  bishop  for  India.  Simon  did  not  dare  do  so  for  fear  of 
the  Moslem  governor.  But  Theodore,  Patriarch  of  the  Gainite 
party  (p.  220),  ordained  a  man  from  Maryut  bishop,  and  two 
priests,  and  sent  them  on  their  way  to  India.  But  the  Khalif  s 
soldiers  caught  them  and  sent  them  back  to  Egypt.  Here  the 
governor  cut  off  their  hands  and  feet  and  made  a  great  trouble 
with  both  Simon  and  Theodore.1  We  notice  already  that  these 
negotiations  with  Monophysites  show  that  the  Nestorian  theology 
was  not  considered  a  very  vital  issue  in  Malabar,  if  indeed  the 
native  Church  understood  the  particular  doctrine  of  its  Katholikos 
at  all. 

The  next  incident  is  interesting  to  us.  Our  King  Alfred,  of 
all  people,  had  relations  with  Malabar.  When  the  Danes  were 
besieging  London,  Alfred  (871-901)  made  a  vow,  if  they  were 
driven  back,  to  send  gifts  to  Rome,  and  also  to  India  in  honour  of 
St.  Thomas  and  St.  Bartholomew.  In  883  he  sent  Sighelm 
or  Suithelm,  Bishop  of  Shireburn,  with  the  gifts.  Sighelm  came 
to  Rome  and  then  went  on  to  the  Malabar  coast.  He  made  his 
offerings  here,  and  brought  back  from  his  long  journey  jewels 
and  spices.2  Strange  to  see  an  English  bishop  in  India  in  883. 
Marco  Polo  (c.  1254-1324)  describes  the  "  pepper-coast  of  Mala- 
bar," 3  tells  stories  about  its  trade  and  customs,  but  says  nothing 
about  Christians  there.4  However,  he  knows  that  there  are 
Christians  in  India ;  he  describes  St.  Thomas'  tomb  at  Mailapur 
and  tells  the  story  of  his  mission  and  death.5 

Two  relics  of  the  time  before  the  Portuguese  conquest  throw 
further  light  on  the  early  history  of  this  Church.  The  first  is  the 
Mailapur  Cross.  In  1547,  as  the  Portuguese  were  digging  the 
foundations  for  a  church  at  Mailapur,  they  found  a  stone  carved 
with  a  cross.   Various  miracles  are  told  of  this  cross.    It  bled,  and 

1  Simon  I  was  Isaac's  successor.  Hist.  Patriarch.  Alex.  ed.  Evetts,  pp. 
[290-296]. 

2  The  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle  (ed.  by  B.  Thorpe),  vol.  ii.  1861,  p.  66. 
William  of  Malmesbury  :  de  Gestis  regum  Anglorum,  ii.  §  122  (ed.  W.  Stubbs), 
London,  1887,  vol.  i.  130. 

3  Everyone  notices  pepper  as  the  chief  export  of  the  Malabar  coast ;  so 
Kosmas  Indikopleustes  :  "  the  so-called  Male  where  pepper  grows,"  loc. 
cit.  (see  p.  104,  n.  2). 

4  Chap,  xxviii.  ed.  Wright  {cit.),  pp.  362-363. 

5  Chap.  xx.  ;   ib.  348-349. 


362        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

at  other  times  gave  out  water.  It  was  supposed  to  mark  the  place 
where  St.  Thomas  was  buried.  It  still  exists  in  the  Church  of  our 
Lady  on  the  Hill  of  St.  Thomas  at  Mailapur,  and  has  been  photo- 
graphed.1 On  the  stone  is  carved  a  cross  which  has  a  remarkable 
likeness  to  that  of  the  Nestorian  monument  at  Si-ngan-fu  (p.  107) ; 
above  it  is  a  dove.  Around  are  letters  which  for  a  long  time  no  one 
could  read.  It  is  now  established  that  they  are  Pehlevi  (the 
language  of  Persia  under  the  Sassanids)  ;  but  there  still  seems  to 
be  some  uncertainty  as  to  their  meaning.  Mr.  Burnell  interpreted 
them  :  "In  punishment  by  the  cross  was  the  suffering  of  this 
one,  he  who  is  the  true  Christ  and  God  above  and  guide  ever  pure." 2 
Dr.  Haug  of  Munich  thinks  that  he  has  translated  wrongly,  and 
reads  :  "  Who  believes  in  Christ  and  in  God  on  high  and  in  the 
Holy  Ghost,  he  is  in  the  grace  of  him  who  bore  the  suffering  of 
the  cross."  3  He  dates  the  cross  and  inscription  as  5th  century. 
The  existence  of  this  monument  (in  Persian)  is  a  valuable  witness 
of  Persian  missions  in  India,  and  confirms  our  view  of  Indian 
Christianity  as  a  mission  from  the  Persian  Church. 

The  other  document  is  the  famous  charter  of  privileges.  In 
1549  a  dying  Malabar  bishop  gave  the  Portuguese  Governor,  as 
a  most  precious  relic,  certain  copper  plates,  which  he  said  con- 
tained the  authentic  grant  of  privileges  made  to  Christians  by 
the  King  of  Cranganore,  and  were  given  by  him  to  Thomas 
"  Cannaneo  "  (p.  357).  After  a  time  these  were  lost,  but  they 
were  found  again  by  Colonel  Macaulay,  British  Resident  in 
Travancore,  and  were  deposited  by  him  in  the  Anglican  College 
at  Kottayam  in  1806.  They  have  been  photographed  and  pub- 
lished.4 There  are  six  copper  plates,  written  in  an  ancient  Indian 
language  (Karnataka),  with  signatures  in  Arabic  and  Syriac. 
They  confer  on  Christians  the  highest  caste,  and  exempt  them 
from  the  jurisdiction  of  Hindu  magistrates,  except  for  criminal 
cases.  In  all  civil  and  ecclesiastical  matters  they  are  to  be  ruled 
by  their  own  Metropolitan.  Among  the  signatures  are  names  of 
Moslems  ;  so  the  tradition  which  dates  these  plates  at  the  time  of 

1  By  A.  C.  Burnell  in  :  On  some  Pahlavi  inscriptions  in  South  India 
(Mangalore,  1873).     This  is  the  cross  on  the  cover  of  this  book. 

2  In  Germann  :  op.  cit.  p.  297.  3  lb.  299. 

4  In  the  Journal  of  the  Royal  Asiatic  Society,  vij.  (1843),  PP-  343~344- 


THE  CHURCH   OF  MALABAR  363 

Thomas  of  Jerusalem  (4th  century)  is  plainly  wrong.  Germann 
thinks  they  are  of  the  8th  century.1  The  Jews  of  Malabar  have 
similar  charters  ;  both  are  interesting  proofs  of  the  characteristic 
tolerance  of  Hindu  kings. 

There  is  little  more  to  say  of  the  first  period  before  the  Portu- 
guese came.  Under  the  mild  rule  of  the  native  Hindu  kings  the 
Nestorian  missionary  Church  flourished  and  was  at  peace.  It 
was  ruled  by  the  one  bishop,  "  Metropolitan  of  India."  He  had 
established  his  see  at  Angamale  (inland  from  Cranganore).  The 
arrangement  had  begun  that  each  Metropolitan  was  assisted  by 
an  archdeacon  of  the  family  of  Palakomatta  ;  2  but  he  himself 
was  still  a  foreigner,  ordained  and  sent  out  by  the  Nestorian 
Katholikos.  When  the  Metropolitan  died  the  archdeacon  sent 
a  petition  for  a  successor  to  the  Katholikos  ;  meanwhile  he 
administered  the  see  himself.  For  a  short  time  the  Christians 
had  even  succeeded  in  obtaining  complete  political  independence. 
They  had  set  up  a  line  of  Christian  kings  of  their  own ,  which  line 
came  to  an  end  not  long  before  the  Portuguese  arrived.  They 
were  then  under  the  Rajah  of  Cochin. 

3.   Since  the  Portuguese  Conquest 

Vasco  da  Gama  came  to  India  first  in  1498.  He  completed 
the  conquest  of  the  coast  by  1502.  The  Portuguese  report  is  that 
they  found  about  two  hundred  thousand  Christians,  having  fifteen 
hundred  churches.  The  Metropolitan  at  the  time  was  Mar  Joseph, 
at  Angamale.  With  the  Portuguese  conquest  begins  the  story  of 
the  reunion  of  the  Malabar  Church  with  Rome.  That  will  be  told 
at  length  in  our  next  volume.  Here  it  is  enough  to  mention  that  at 
the  Synod  of  Diamper  in  1599  the  Malabar  Church  was  made  to 
renounce  Nestorianism  and  all  connection  with  the  Katholikos  in 
Mesopotamia,  to  accept  the  Catholic  faith  and  the  Pope's  auth- 
ority. There  begins  a  line  of  Uniate  Metropolitans,  dependent 
to  some  extent  on  the  Portuguese  Latin  hierarchy.  As  long  as 
the  Portuguese  were  masters,  that  state  of  things  continued. 

1  Die  Kirche  der  Thomaschristen,  248-250. 

2  They  had  a  legend  that  St.  Thomas  had  chosen  an  archdeacon  of  this 
family. 


364        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Officially  and  theoretically,  all  Malabar  Christians  were  Uniates. 
The  Inquisition  was  set  up  ;  prison,  and  in  some  cases  death, 
were  the  penalties  of  relapse  into  schism.  But  the  Inquisition 
rarely  succeeded  in  securing  hearty  affection  from  its  victims. 
There  follows  a  complicated  story  of  relapsed  and  deposed 
bishops  ;  undoubtedly  many  of  the  clergy  and  people  only 
accepted  the  union  externally,  while  waiting  for  a  chance  of 
restoring  a  Nestorian,  or  at  least  non-Papal  Church.  The 
Uniate  Metropolitan  (now  called  Archbishop)  moved  his  see  to 
Cranganore  on  the  coast.  In  1653  a  number  of  the  clergy  and 
leading  men  met  in  the  Church  of  Alanghat  and  swore  to  renounce 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Archbishop,  to  set  up  a  non-Uniate  Metro- 
politan as  before.  It  was,  of  course,  a  secret  conspiracy,  for 
fear  of  the  Portuguese.  They  chose  Thomas  Palakomatta,  of 
the  appointed  family,  to  be  archdeacon,  and  set  about  to  obtain 
a  bishop.  They  tried  to  get  one  from  the  Nestorians.  But  the 
Government  was  on  the  watch  in  that  direction,  and  would  let 
no  one  through  towards  Mesopotamia.  One  sees  that  the  one 
point  which  mattered  to  the  schismatical  party  was  to  be  inde- 
pendent of  Rome,  represented  to  them  by  the  hated  conqueror. 
Evidently  they  cared  little  about  the  Council  of  Ephesus.  So, 
as  they  could  not  get  to  Mesopotamia,  they  sent  by  sea  to 
the  Copts  in  Egypt.  The  Coptic  Patriarch  ordained  and  sent 
them  a  (Monophysite)  Syrian1  named  Aithallaha,  otherwise 
Ignatius.  But  he  was  caught  and  put  to  death.2  This  first 
attempt  shows  both  the  persistent  determination  of  a  party  in 
Malabar  not  to  be  Uniates  and  their  indifference  as  to  whether 
they  were  to  be  in  union  with  Nestorians  or  Monophysites. 
Both  are  characteristic.  Thomas  Palakomatta  continued  to 
rule  his  hiding  faction  as  archdeacon  while  waiting  for  a  bishop. 
There  is  a  curious  story  that  twelve  of  his  priests  went  through 
an  alleged  form  of  ordination  by  laying  a  letter  from  the  im- 

1  I  take  it  he  must  have  been  a  Monophysite.  The  Malabar  people  waver 
in  the  strangest  way  ;  but  I  cannot  conceive  a  Coptic  Patriarch  ordaining 
a  Nestorian. 

2  Germann  :  op.  cit.  447-449.  He  tells  the  story  differently  (pp.  452— 
453),  and  says  that  Aithallaha  was  sent  by  the  Uniate  Chaldee  Patriarch 
at  Mosul ;  which  makes  his  capture  and  death  unaccountable.  I  follow 
the  usual  version  as  given  by  Howard  :   The  Christians  of  St.  Thomas,  45-46. 


THE   CHURCH   OF  MALABAR  365 

prisoned  Aithallaha  on  his  head.1  Many  of  his  adherents  returned 
to  the  obedience  of  the  Uniate  Archbishop,  and  he  had  only  a 
small  remnant  when  the  Hollandish  conquest  changed  the  whole 
situation.  The  Hollanders  took  Quill  on  from  the  Portuguese 
in  1661 ;  in  1662  they  captured  Cranganore ;  in  1663  Cochin  and 
the  whole  coast.  The  new  Protestant  masters  reversed  the 
situation.  They  had  no  interest  in  maintaining  the  Pope's 
authority  ;  on  the  contrary,  they  encouraged  schism  and,  if 
anything,  rather  persecuted  the  Catholics.  So  the  Archdeacon 
Thomas  and  his  friends  now  easily  got  what  they  wanted.  But, 
strangely,  they  did  not  apply  to  their  old  patrons  the  Nestorians. 
They  seemed  to  have  got  used  to  looking  to  the  other  faction  for 
help  ;  in  any  case,  they  must  have  been  completely  indifferent 
about  their  original  heresy.  It  was  Gregory,  Jacobite  Metro- 
politan of  Jerusalem,  who  came  to  India  in  1665  and  ordained 
Thomas  Metropolitan.  Here,  then,  occurs  one  of  the  most 
astonishing  transformations  in  Church  history.  The  Uniate 
majority  were  not,  of  course,  affected.  But  the  schismatical 
Christians  of  Malabar,  who  had  been  Nestorian,  now  became 
Jacobite.  Thomas  accepted  the  Jacobite  rite  and  was  in  com- 
munion with  the  Jacobite  Patriarch  of  Antioch.  That  is  still 
the  state  of  a  great  part  of  the  schismatical  body. 

Its  further  history  is  a  bewildering  confusion  of  rival  claimants, 
schisms  among  themselves  and  complicated  quarrels.  The 
Nestorians  made  various  unsuccessful  attempts  to  recapture 
their  ancient  daughter  Church.  Early  in  the  18th  century  they 
sent  a  bishop,  Mar  Gabriel,  who  formed  for  a  time  a  schism  from 
the  Jacobite  Metropolitan  ;  but  his  party  seems  to  have  died  out 
with  him.2  In  1750  the  Mafrian  Basil  came  to  Malabar  in  order 
to  ordain  a  certain  Thomas.  But  he  changed  his  mind,  and 
ordained  one  Cyril  instead.     Thomas  then  made  a  schism,  which 

1  There  is  a  similar  story  that  in  1810,  when  a  bishop  died  without 
ordaining  a  successor,  the  clergy  took  a  priest,  brought  him  to  the  dead  body, 
said  the  prayers  for  ordaining  a  bishop,  and  laid  the  dead  hand  on  his  head 
(Germann,  p.  621).  I  have  heard  of  several  such  cases  of  ordination  by  a 
dead  hand  (compare  the  Armenian  practice,  p.  416)  ;  but  I  do  not  think 
that,  even  in  times  of  extreme  necessity,  they  were  ever  acknowledged. 
This  man,  so  ordained,  was  never  recognized  as  a  real  bishop. 

2  Germann  :    p.  549  ;    Silbernagl  :    Verfassung,  u.s.w.  318. 


366        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

was  carried  on  after  his  death,  and  was  only  appeased  by  the 
Rajah  of  Travancore.1  This  is  one  example  of  what  has  happened 
almost  incessantly.  Malabar  Church  history,  except  for  the 
Uniates,  is  one  long  story  of  rival  Metropolitans,  the  interference 
of  various  foreign  prelates,  schismatical  ordinations,2  endless 
quarrels  and  appeals  to  the  pagan  secular  power.  At  the  end 
of  the  18th  century  the  power  of  Holland  begins  to  give  way 
before  that  of  England.  The  second  Mysore  war  (1790-1792) 
gave  us  undisputed  supremacy  in  Southern  India  ;  the  Rajahs 
of  Cochin  and  Travancore  (who  divide  the  Malabar  coast)  became 
dependent  on  England  in  1795.  So  begin  relations  between 
Anglicans  and  the  schismatical  Malabar  Christians.  In  1806 
Dr.  Claudius  Buchanan  visited  their  Metropolitan  Dionysius  and 
proposed  a  union  between  the  two  Churches.  But  the  Indians 
seem  to  have  known  something  about  the  Church  of  England, 
for  they  said  that  they  could  not  acknowledge  Anglican  orders.3 
It  really  is  hard  on  Anglicans  that  no  one,  not  even  this  poor  little 
sect  in  India,  will  accept  their  orders.  However,  in  spite  of  this, 
relations  were  not  at  first  unfriendly.  Anglicans  were,  of  course, 
delighted  to  find  an  ancient  Church  which  is  not  in  union  with 
Rome  ;  the  Malabar  clergy  had  every  reason  to  be  on  good  terms 
with  these  rich  and  powerful  foreigners  who  were  now  masters 
of  the  country.  As  usual,  the  Anglicans  professed  the  greatest 
possible  respect  for  the  ancient  Syrian  Church  in  India,  and 
loudly  declared  their  intention  not  to  proselytize.  They  only 
wanted  to  educate  and  help.  So  they  printed  and  dis- 
tributed Syriac  Bibles  ;  they  built  a  college  for  the  Christian 
natives  at  Kottayam  near  Cochin.  But  soon  dissension  began. 
It  was  the  Church  Missionary  Society  which  undertook  this  work, 
and  its  missionaries  were,  even  for  that  Society,  very  Low  Church 
indeed.  They  taught  justification  by  faith  alone  and  an  un- 
sacramental  theology  ;  they  never  ceased  pouring  scorn  on  the 
Malabar  holy  liturgy,  which  they  would  call  a  Mass — apparently 
as  a  term  of  abuse.4     One  of  their  ministers,  when  invited  to 

1  Howard  :  op.  cit.  55. 

2  Schismatical  among  themselves.  3  Howard  :  op.  cit.  57. 

4  Howard  :    op.  cit.  p.  94.     "  Mass  "  is,  of  course,  a  totally  wrong  name 
for  any  liturgy  but  those  of  the  Latin  rites. 


THE   CHURCH  OF  MALABAR  367 

preach  in  a  native  Church,  after  his  sermon,  with  his  own  hands 
tore  down  a  picture  of  St.  George  and  "  committed  an  act  of 
violence  to  an  individual  there  "  in  so  doing ; x  they  taught  their 
pupils  out  of  a  Presbyterian  catechism.2  So  there  came  a  formal 
breach.  The  Metropolitan  excommunicated  those  who  follow  the 
Anglican  missionaries;  they  have  set  up  rival,  frankly  Protestant, 
conventicles,  with  a  service  of  their  own.3  Meanwhile,  about  the 
year  1825,  there  was  another  schism  among  the  natives  them- 
selves.4 Of  late  years,  High  Church  clergymen  have  travelled 
in  Malabar  and  have  shown  these  people  that  there  are 
different  kinds  of  Anglicanism. 


4.  The  Land  and  People 

We  come  to  the  present  state  of  the  schismatical  Church. 
The  situation  is  different  from  that  of  all  the  other  Churches 
described  in  this  volume,  for  in  this  case  the  schismatics  are  a 
minority,  and  are  clearly  a  later  breach  away  from  the  old  body. 
From  what  has  been  said  in  the  last  paragraph  it  is  clear  that, 
as  a  matter  of  historic  continuity,  the  Uniates  are  the  original 
Church  which  accepted5  union  with  Rome  at  the  synod  of  Diamper. 
The  Uniate  Vicars  Apostolic  ritus  syro-malabarici  now  represent  the 
old  line  of  Metropolitans  of  India.  The  Jacobite  Metropolitan 
rules  a  new  schism,  tracing  his  line  only  to  Thomas  Palakomatta, 
ordained  in  1665  ;  and  the  breach  of  continuity  with  the  past  is 
the  more  manifest  in  that  they  then  joined  another  religious 
body — the  Jacobites.  If  the  Jacobite  bishops  in  India  wish  to 
trace  their  line  to  the  Apostles,  they  must  go  back  to  1665,  then 
leave  India,  join  on  to  the  Jacobite  Church  of  Syria,  and  go  back 
to  James  Baradai,  Severus  of  Antioch,  and  so,  in  a  way,  to  the 
old  Patriarchate  of  Antioch. 

Along  the  south-western  coast  of  India,  between  latitudes 
9  and  13,  lies  an  undulating  country  between  the  sea  and  the 
high  Anamullay  mountains.  It  stretches  for  about  two  hundred 
miles  from  Mangalore  on  the  north  to  Cape  Comorin,  and  is  from 

1  Howard,  op.  cit.  97.     See  p.  106  for  another  disgraceful  scene. 

2  lb.  3  lb.  107-108.     See  below,  pp.  369-371.  4  lb.  67-71. 
5  Whether  willingly  or  by  force  does  not  affect  the  point. 


368        THE   LESSER   EASTERN  CHURCHES 

thirty  to  fifty  miles  wide.  This  is  the  famous  pepper-coast  of 
Malabar.  Inside  of  the  coast-line  is  a  long  expanse  of  water,  a 
back-water  or  series  of  lagoons  connected  by  channels  and  sepa- 
rated from  the  open  sea  by  a  narrow  strip  of  land  with  occasional 
openings.  You  may  travel  almost  the  whole  length  of  the 
Malabar  coast  by  water  along  these  lagoons.  The  land  is  fertile, 
but  very  unhealthy  ;  cholera  and  smallpox  carry  off  great  numbers 
of  people  every  year  and  leprosy  abounds.  The  land  is  divided 
politically  between  the  Rajahs  of  Cochin  to  the  north  and  Travan- 
core  to  the  south,  under  British  supremacy.  A  British  Resident 
in  their  States  controls  their  Government.1  The  majority  of 
inhabitants  are  Hindus.  There  is  a  small  but  very  ancient  and 
interesting  community  of  native  Jews  (p.  354),  and  about 
nine  hundred  thousand  Christians.  Of  these,  nearly  four 
hundred  thousand  are  Jacobites.  There  is  no  difference  of 
race  or  language  between  the  Christians  and  the  others.  All 
talk  Malayalam.2  Their  Syriac  services  are  like  those  in  Latin 
to  us.  But  Christians  seem  to  have  special  quarters  in  the 
towns. 

5.  The  Schisms  at  Malabar 

The  Jacobites  of  Malabar  should  have,  in  theory,  one  bishop 
only,  the  "Bishop  and  Gate  of  all  India."3  But  there  are  many 
rivals  and  schisms  among  them.  The  people  are  very  quarrel- 
some, always  going  to  law  against  each  other.  A  discontented 
party  sends  to  the  Jacobite  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  or  to  someone 
else,  complaining  of  their  bishop.  In  return  he  is  generally 
deposed,  and  a  rival  appointed.  But  he  will  not  retire  ;  there 
are  mutual  excommunications,  and  a  schism  is  formed. 

1  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  G.  T.  Mackenzie,  Resident  from  1899  to  1904, 
for  much  valuable  information  about  the  Malabar  Christians.  Mr.  Macken- 
zie, who  is  a  Catholic,  compiled  the  chapter  on  Christianity  in  the  Travancore 
State  Manual  (Trivandrum,  1906),  ii.  135-223,  and  wrote  an  able  article 
in  the  Dublin  Review,  vol.  139  (July-Oct.  1906)  :  "The  Syrian  Christians 
in  India"  (pp.  105-122). 

?  Malayalam,  nearly  akin  to  Tamil,  is  one  of  the  "  Dravidic  "  (not 
Aryan)  dialects  spoken  in  Southern  India. 

3  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  are  quite  a  number  of  bishops  in  Malabar, 
mostly  in  schism  with  one  another  ;  the  Jacobite  now  has  suffragans  (p.  374). 


THE   CHURCH   OF   MALABAR  369 

To  understand  the  present  extremely  complicated  state  of 
non-Uniate  Christianity  along  this  coast  we  must  go  back  to  the 
Anglican  missions. 

In  1816,  missionaries  of  the  Church  Missionary  Society  began 
operations  among  the  Malabar  Jacobites.  We  have  noted  that 
they  were  exceedingly  Low  Church.1  As  usual  among  Protestant 
missionaries,  they  began  with  the  idea,  not  of  converting  natives 
away  from  their  Church,  but  of  reforming  and  purifying  it  by 
spreading  the  pure  gospel.  They  seem  to  have  cared  very  little 
about  Monophysism,  if  indeed  they  even  knew  enough  to  under- 
stand what  it  is.2  But  they  were  strong  against  what  they  thought 
Popish  abuses,  such  as  images,  praying  to  saints  or  for  the  dead, 
the  liturgy  as  a  sacrifice,  and  so  on.  They  did  not  know  that 
both  Nestorians  and  Jacobites  inherit  these  things  from  the 
early  Church  just  as  much  as  Rome  does.  The  panacea  for  all 
these  abuses  was,  of  course,  to  be  vernacular  (Malayalam)  versions 
of  the  Bible.  They  preached  the  pure  gospel  with  such  effect 
that,  out  of  the  one  Jacobite  body,  there  are  now  seven  quarrelling 
sects. 

At  first  the  Malabar  Jacobites  believed  the  assurances  of  their 
Anglican  guests  that  they  did  not  mean  to  proselytize,  nor  to 
disturb  a  venerable  sister  Church.  To  the  C.M.S.  clergymen, 
Monophysites  were  a  branch  of  the  Church,  just  as  much  as 
the  Orthodox,  Lutherans  and  Moravians.  Only  (like  most 
branches  out  of  England)  they  wanted  a  little  reforming.  But 
the  reforming  efforts  were  not  very  successful.  Dr.  Richards 
tells  us  :  "  Apparently  the  only  effort  that  was  quite  successful 
was  that  for  the  reintroduction  of  marriage  among  the  clergy, 

1  They  are  so  still.  Dr.  W.  J.  Richards,  for  thirty-five  years  C.M.S. 
missionary  at  Malabar,  author  of  a  little  book  :  The  Indian  Christians  of 
St.  Thomas  (London:  G.  Allen,  1908),  talks  about  a  deacon  being  ordained 
"  full  priest"  (p.  37).  He  also  thinks  that  the  Council  of  Nicaea  made  five 
patriarchates,  Constantinople  being  the  second  (p.  13).  He  thinks  Menezes 
of  Goa,  who  held  the  synod  of  Diamper,  was  a  Jesuit  (p.  14)  ;  he  seems  to 
think  all  Romish  priests  to  be  more  or  less  Jesuits.  He  constantly  talks 
about  a  Jacobite  "Patriarch  of  Jerusalem"  (pp.  17,  18,  etc.).  He  thinks 
that  "Catholicos"  means  Patriarch  (p.  10),  and  he  does  not  understand 
what  Nestorianism  means  (p.  13).  From  his  book  I  gather  that  the  zeal 
of  the  C.M.S.  missionaries  exceeds  their  theological  equipment. 

2  See  the  instructions  of  the  C.M.S.  quoted  in  Richards  :   op.  cit.  21,  22. 

24 


370        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

and  this  was  brought  about  by  the  offer  on  the  part  of  the  British 
Resident  of  special  dowries  to  the  first  women  who  would  accept 
priests  as  husbands." 1  This  is  interesting.  One  does  not  often 
find  so  unblushing  a  confession  of  bribery.  So  with  their  married 
native  clergy  and  their  Protestant  ideas  the  Anglicans  formed 
a  Reforming  party  within  the  Jacobite  Church.  It  soon  became 
a  sect.  In  1835  the  Jacobite  Metran  2  held  a  synod  at  a  town 
Mavelikara.  He  was  now  quite  disillusioned  about  the  C.M.S., 
and  made  all  his  clergy  take  an  oath  to  have  nothing  to  do  with 
them.  The  Reformers  then  became  a  new  body,  and  began  a 
long  process  of  lawsuits  with  the  Jacobites  about  the  property. 

A  Malpan  (teacher)  in  the  Kottayam  College,  Abraham,  who 
was  a  priest  (Katanar),3  took  up  the  Protestant  ideas  warmly. 
Dr.  Richards  says  of  him  with  just  pride  that  he  was  "  the  Wyclif 
of  the  Syrian  Church  in  Malabar."  4  The  Kottayam  College, 
in  the  hands  of  the  C.M.S.,  became  a  centre  in  which  boys  were 
trained  in  these  ideas.  "  Colporteurs  and  catechists  spread  the 
printed  Word  all  over  the  country."5  Malpan  Abraham  had  a 
nephew,  Matthew,  and  a  pupil,  George  Matthan.  Both  were 
excommunicated  by  the  Jacobite  Metran.  George  became 
an  Anglican,  and  died  in  1870.  Matthew  used  cribs  at  Madras, 
and  was  expelled  from  the  college  there.6  Then  he  went  to 
Syria  and  got  ordained  bishop  by  the  Jacobite  Patriarch  (who 
must,  I  think,  have  been  misinformed  as  to  his  intentions).  In 
1843  he  came  back,  calling  himself  Metran  of  the  Reformed 
Church.  Naturally,  he  was  again  excommunicated  by  the 
Jacobite  Metran.  Then  he  embarked  on  the  favourite  Malabar 
practice  of  going  to  law  with  the  Jacobites  over  the  property, 
and  turned  out  so  full  of  what  Dr.  Richards  calls  "  ungodliness," 7 
that  his  uncle  Abraham  refused  to  receive  Communion  from  him 
when  dying.  He  now  called  himself  Mar  Athanasius  Matthew, 
got  recognized  by  the  Government  in  1857,  was  apparently 
converted  to  a  more  moral  life  by  the  Anglican  bishop  Dr.  Milman 
in  1870  (though  he  was  still  "too  astute"),8  and  died  in  1877. 

1  Richards  :  op.  cit.  26. 

2  Syriac  :   metran,  mitran  ;   Arabic  :   mutran,  "  metropolitan." 

3  Malayalam  for  "  Lord."     The  usual  name  for  Malabar  priests. 

4  Op.  cit.  p.  30.         5  lb.  32.         6  lb.  37.         7  lb.  38.         8  lb.  p.  39. 


THE  CHURCH   OF  MALABAR  371 

He  had  already  begun  to  celebrate  the  holy  liturgy  in  Malayalam. 
He  was  succeeded  by  his  cousin,  Mar  Thomas  Athanasius,  whom 
he  had  already  ordained  as  his  auxiliary.  The  head  of  the  un- 
reformed  Jacobites,  his  rival,  was  Mar  Dionysius  V.  Dionysius 
invited  the  Jacobite  Patriarch  to  come  to  India  himself  and  to 
crush  the  Reformed  sect.  In  1875  the  Patriarch  (Ignatius 
'Abdu-lMasih)  1  came.  He  did  all  he  could  to  help  Dionysius. 
He  excommunicated  Thomas  Athanasius  and  his  followers,  and 
ordained  six  new  bishops  as  suffragans  of  Dionysius.  But  he 
could  not  crush  the  Reformed  sect.  There  were  now  two  non- 
Uniate  Churches  :  the  Jacobites  (known  as  the  Patriarch's  party) 
and  the  Reformed  (the  Metran's  party).  In  1889  and  1901  the 
quarrel  between  these  two  over  the  churches  and  church  property 
again  came  before  the  Hindu  courts.2  The  case  went  both  times 
against  the  Reformers.  Quite  rightly,  the  judges  decided  that 
the  Jacobites  are  the  old  Church  (since  1665),  and  have  a  right 
to  all  the  property  they  have  acquired  since  then.  The  Reformers 
are  a  new  sect,  and  must  acquire  property  for  themselves. 

At  the  time  of  the  Vatican  Council  it  was  proposed  to  submit 
the  Malabar  Uniates  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  (Chaldaean)  Patri- 
arch of  Babylon.3  It  seems  that  Propaganda  was  considering 
the  matter- — maybe  they  had  already  discussed  it  with  the  Patri- 
arch, when  he,  without  further  authority,4  sent  a  certain  Elias 
Melius  (formerly  Chaldaean  Bishop  of  Akra  in  Kurdistan)  to 
India,  pretending  to  give  him  jurisdiction  over  all  Malabar 
Uniates.5  From  this  a  great  quarrel  arose,  which  will  be  described 
in  our  next  volume.     The  end  of  it  was  that  Melius  would  not 

1  This  is  the  Patriarch  who  was  deposed  in  1906  when  Ignatius  'Abdullah 
Sattiif  was  made  his  successor.  I  am  glad  to  say  that  the  other  day  (May 
3,  19 1 3)  Ignatius  'Abdu-lMasih  abjured  his  heresy  and  was  reconciled  to  the 
Catholic  Church  by  Ignatius  Ephrem  Rahmani,  the  Uniate  Syrian  Patriarch 
of  Antioch.     Two  other  Jacobite  bishops  had  already  done  so  in  January. 

2  The  lawsuits  fill  four  large  volumes. 

3  Hitherto  the  Malabar  Uniates  had  an  irregular  position  under  Latin 
bishops.     Some  such  arrangement  as  this  would  seem  most  natural. 

*  The  Patriarch  said  he  had  received  authority  from  the  Pope  to  do  so. 
This  was  denied  at  Rome. 

5  This  was  only  one  of  several  such  more  or  less  schismatical  ordinations 
made  by  the  late  Chaldaean  Patriarch  Joseph  VI  (Audu,  1848-1878).  He 
repented  of  these,  and  did  not  incur  the  excommunication  with  which  he  was 
threatened  in  1876.     I  will  tell  the  whole  story  in  the  volume  on  the  Uniates. 


372   THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

retire,  was  excommunicated,  and  went  into  schism  with  a  small 
party  in  1876.  He  died,  apparently  without  having  ordained  a 
successor.  Meanwhile  this  party,  in  schism  with  both  the  Uniates 
and  the  Jacobites,  for  want  of  anyone  else,  turned  to  the  Nes- 
torians  and  joined  in  communion  with  them.  In  1907  the 
Nestorian  Katholikos  ordained  one  of  his  archdeacons,  Mar 
Abimlek  (AbimelechJ,  with  the  usual  title  Mar  Timotheus,  and 
sent  him  to  rule  this  revived  Nestorian  Church.1  Mar  Timotheus 
now  rules  a  small  body  of  about  eight  thousand  people  at  Trichur 
in  the  Cochin  State.  They  conform  in  all  things  (except,  appar- 
ently, in  vestments)  to  the  Nestorians  of  Kudshanis.  In  this 
way  there  is  again  a  small  body  of  Nestorians  here.  But  they 
have  no  continuity  from  the  old  Nestorians  of  India.  They 
are  the  modern  schism  of  Melius  from  the  Uniates. 

About  the  same  time  appeared  an  ambiguous  person,  Julius 
Alvarez.  He  is  a  Portuguese  priest  from  Goa,  originally  a  Latin. 
After  the  Vatican  Council  he  apostatized  and  got  himself  ordained 
bishop  by  the  Reformed  party  in  1888.  For  a  time  he  was  one 
of  them.  He  has  a  small  following  in  Ceylon  (with  a  cathedral  at 
Colombo).  He  calls  himself  Mar  Julius  I.  His  party  is  chiefly 
famous  for  the  begging  letters  they  write  and  the  doubt  they  cause 
to  people  who  receive  these  letters  as  to  who,  exactly,  they  may 
be.  Lately,  Alvarez  and  his  following  appear  to  have  gone 
over  to  the  Jacobites  of  the  new  "  Metran's  party  "  (p.  373). 2 

Lately  there  has  occurred  a  fresh  schism  among  the  Jacobites. 
In  1909  the  Patriarch  (Ignatius  'Abdullah  Sattiif)  came  to 
India,  quarrelled  with  Mar  Dionysius  V,  and  excommunicated 
him.  In  his  place  he  ordained  a  certain  Mar  Cyril  (Kirllus). 
About  half  the  Jacobites  accept  this,  and  are  in  communion  with 
the  Patriarch  of  Antioch.  They  have  four  bishops,  Mar  Cyril, 
two  suffragans,  and  a  delegate  of  the  Patriarch.3 

1  The  portrait  of  this  Mar  Timotheus,  in  Latin  vestments,  with  an 
enormous  Roman  mitre  and  a  portentous  crozier,  may  be  seen  in  Heazell 
and  Margoliouth  :    Kurds  and  Christians  (London,  1913),  p.  196. 

2  In  Dr.  Richard's  Indian  Christians,  Alvarez  appears  in  a  photograph 
with  the  bishops  of  the  Metran's  party  (p.  63).  It  was  this  man  who 
ordained  the  notorious  Vilatte  bishop.  Vilatte  (calling  himself  Mar 
Timotheus)  ordained  Mr.  Lyne  ("  Father  Ignatius  ")  priest  at  Llanthony. 

3  This  Jacobite  delegate  in  India  appears  sometimes  to  be  called  by  their 
old  title  "Mafrian." 


THE   CHURCH   OF   MALABAR  373 

No  one  who  knows  the  Malabar  people  will  be  surprised  to  learn 
that  Mar  Dionysius  did  not  accept  the  deposition  of  his  Patriarch. 
He  promptly  retorted  that  his  Church  is  an  autocephalous 
branch  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  that  the  Patriarch  had  no  right 
to  excommunicate  him,  that,  in  any  case,  he  was  not  going  to  be 
deposed.  Half  the  Jacobites  followed  him.  So  now  again  there 
are  a  "Patriarch's  party"  and  a  "  Metran's  party"  (Dionysius' 
followers),1  not  in  communion  with  one  another.  Then  Dionysius, 
to  strengthen  his  position,  invited  the  ex-Patriarch,  Ignatius 
'Abdu-lMasIh,  to  India.2  'Abdu-lMasih  came,  backed  Dionysius 
against  his  hated  rival  Sattiif,  agreed  that  Dionysius'  deposition 
was  invalid,  and  excommunicated  Mar  Cyril  and  the  "  Patriarch's 
party."  He  then  made  a  bishop  of  Dionysius'  party  (not  Diony- 
sius himself)3  its  chief,  with  the  title  (new  in  India)  Katholikos. 
This  Katholikos  is  to  be  independent  of  Antioch  and  the  Syrian 
Jacobites.  He  may  ordain  bishops  by  his  own  authority ; 
when  he  dies  they  are  to  choose  his  successor.  So  'Abdu-lMasih, 
apparently  more  anxious  to  annoy  Sattiif  than  to  maintain  the 
rights  of  Antioch  over  India,  set  up  an  autocephalous  Jacobite 
Church  at  Malabar.  'Abdu-lMasih,  during  his  visit,  ordained 
three  new  bishops  to  be  suffragans  of  the  Katholikos.  His 
Katholikos  died  recently.  Mar  Dionysius,  Alvarez,  and  these 
three  are  now  about  to  elect  a  Katholikos. 

Now  we  turn  to  the  Reformed  Church.  Their  Mar  Athanasius 
Matthew  (p.  370)  ordained  a  bishop,  Joseph  Cyril,  for  a  small 
group  at  Anjur  (in  British  Malabar,  north  of  Trichur),  which 
accepts  the  Reformer's  ideas  and  is  in  communion  with  them. 


1  Notice  that  these  names  now  have  a  new  sense.  In  the  old  days 
the  "  Patriarch's  party  "  were  the  Jacobites,  the  "  Metran's  party  "  the 
Reformers  (p.  371). 

2  There  was  considerable  dispute  among  the  Syrian  Jacobites  as  to  the 
lawfulness  of  'Abdu-lMasih's  deposition  and  Sattiif 's  accession  to  the 
Patriarchate  in  1906  (p.  339).  I  gather  that  Dionysius'  idea  was  to 
maintain  that  it  was  unlawful,  that  Suttuf  is  no  true  Patriarch  ;  so  his 
action  in  India  does  not  count.  And  'Abdu-lMasih,  still  lawful  Patriarch, 
acknowledged  Dionysius,  and  by  his  supreme  authority  made  the  Malabar 
Jacobites  autocephalous.  Needless  to  say,  'Abdu-lMasih,  now  that  he  is  a 
Catholic,  repents  of  all  these  things.  By  his  conversion  he  has  rather 
left  Dionysius  and  his  friends  in  the  lurch. 

3  This  is  strange.     I  do  not  know  the  reason  of  it, 


374        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

These  two  then  ordained  Mar  Thomas  Athanasius  (p.  371).  When 
Athanasius  Matthew  died,  Thomas  Athanasius  and  Joseph  Cyril 
ordained  Joseph  Athanasius,  also  for  Anjur.  Thomas  and  Joseph 
ordained  George x  Cyril,  who  is  now  Metran  of  Anjur.  Joseph  and 
George  ordained  Titus  Mar  Thomas  I  to  be  Metran  of  the  Re- 
formed Church  in  Travancore.  He  and  George  ordained  Titus 
Mar  Thoma  II  as  auxiliary  of  Titus  Mar  Thomas  I.  Titus  Mar 
Thoma  II  is  now  the  only  Reformed  bishop  in  Travancore.  A 
candidate,  who  will  be  ordained  in  time,  is  being  educated  at  the 
Wyclif  College  at  Toronto. 

The  Reformers  call  themselves  the  "  Mar  Thomas  Christians."  2 
They  are  considerably  Protestantized.  They  have  no  images, 
denounce  the  idea  of  the  Eucharistic  sacrifice,  pray  neither  to 
saints  nor  for  the  dead,  and  use  the  vernacular  (Malayalam)  for 
their  services.  Mr.  Daniel3  says  they  "hold  views  similar  to 
those  of  the  Church  of  England  in  matters  of  faith."  If  only  we 
knew  what  the  views  of  the  Church  of  England  in  matters  of 
faith  are,  it  would  be  easier  to  estimate  those  of  the  Mar 
Thomas  Christians.  However,  he  probably  means  that  kind 
of  Anglicanism  which  is  taught  by  the  C.M.S.  They  use  St. 
James's  Liturgy  "  with  a  few  alterations  in  the  prayers."  The 
Jacobites  deny  the  validity  of  the  Reformers'  orders,  without 
reason,  it  seems. 

The  Christian  Churches  in  Malabar  then  are  these  : 

1.  The  Uniates  (very  considerably  the  majority ;  over 
400,000  ;  with  five  bishops,  371  churches  besides  chapels, 
418  secular  and  72  regular  priests,  seven  monasteries,  13 
convents)  .4 

2.  Jacobites  of  the  Patriarch's  party  (about  200,000  ;  four 
bishops,  including  the  Patriarch's  delegate). 

3.  Jacobites  of  the  Metran's  party  (about  200,000 ;  five  bishops, 
including  Alvarez). 

1  Syriac  :  Gewargls. 

2  Namely,  they  affect  one  of  the  old  names  of  all  Malabar  Christians, 
"  Christians  of  St.  Thomas." 

3  Editor  of  the  Malankara  Sabha  Tharaka  (Star  of  the  Malankara  Church), 
organ  of  this  body,  to  whom  I  am  indebted  for  much  information  about 
the  present  state  of  Malabar. 

4  From  the  last  edition  of  the  Malabar  State  Manual,  pp.  872-873. 


THE   CHURCH   OF   MALABAR  375 

4.  Mar  Thomas  Christians  (the  Reformed  body;  about 
100,000  ; 1  168  churches,  one  bishop  now  alive). 

5.  The  Church  of  Anjur  in  British  Malabar  (a  small  body  with 
one  bishop,  in  communion  with  the  Mar  Thomas  Church) . 

6.  The  Nestorians  at  Trichur  (about  8000,  one  bishop). 

7.  "  Church  of  England  Syrians  "  (those  who  have  joined  the 
Church  of  England  under  the  C.M.S.  ;  under  the  Anglican  clergy). 

8.  The  Yoyomayans,  a  small  Christian  Chiliast  sect,  founded  in 
1874  by  a  Brahmin  convert,  Justus  Joseph,  called  "  Vidvan 
Kutti  "  (the  learned  person).2 

Lastly,  there  is  a  racial  difference  between  the  "  Northist 
(Nordhist)  "  and  "  Southist  (Suddhist)  "  Christians  of  Malabar. 
This  crosses  all  the  religious  bodies  and  leads  to  much  further 
quarrelling.  Northists  and  Southists  do  not  intermarry ;  each 
despise  the  others.  Even  the  Uniate  Northists  and  Southists 
quarrel.  The  Southists  have  lately  secured  a  special  Vicar 
Apostolic  of  their  own  race.  But  this  belongs  to  the  history  of 
the  Uniate  Churches. 

With  regard  to  their  Canon  Law,  it  may  be  taken  that  the 
Jacobites  follow  that  of  the  Jacobite  Patriarch,  the  small  Nes- 
torian  body  at  Trichur  that  of  Mar  Shim'un.  The  priests  are 
"  Katanars,"  the  deacons  "  Shamashe."  The  non-Uniates  have 
no  monks,  nor  nuns,  nor  minor  orders.  Silbernagl  says  that  priests 
may  marry  after  ordination  ! 3  But  so  gross  a  violation  of  Canon 
Law  seems  impossible  in  any  old  Church.  I  think  he  must  mean 
the  Reformed  sect,  or  confuse  with  them.  They,  naturally, 
hold  the  usual  Protestant  principles. 

6.  Faith  and  Rites 

Little  need  be  said  about  these,  because  both  are  simply 
Jacobite.4 

The   editor    of  the    Madras    Church   Missionary   Record   for 

November,  1835,  draws  up  a  list  of  the  "  principal  errors  of 

1  Mr.  Daniel  says  "  about  a  lac." 

2  Travancore  State  Manual  (1901),  ii.  130-134. 

3  Verfassung,  u.s.w.  p.  320. 

4  Nestorian,  of  course,  among  the  Trichur  people. 


376        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

the  Syrian  Church"   which  redound  to  its   credit.     They  are 
eleven  :    "  (i)    Transubstantiation ;    (2)    The    sacrifice    of    the 


FIG.   13. CHURCH  AT  KARINGACHERY. 

Mass  ;  (3)  Prayers  for  the  dead  ;  (4)  Purgatory ;  (5)  Wor- 
ship of  the  Virgin  Mary,  supplicating  her  intercessions  and 
observing  a  fast  in  her  honour ;  (6)  Worship  of  saints ; 
(7)    Prayers   in    an   unknown   tongue ;    (8)    Extreme    Unction  ; 

(9)  Attributing  to  the  clergy  the  power  to  curse  and  destroy 
men's  bodies  and  souls  ;  (10)  The  having  in  their  churches 
pictures  representing  God  the  Father  ;  (n)  Prayers  to  the  altar 
and  chancel."  1  Allowing  for  the  typical  Protestant  confusion 
contained  in  (9)  and  (n)  (he  means,  of  course,  relative  honour 
paid  to  the  holy  places),  admitting  (7)  as  no  advantage,  and 

(10)  as  undesirable,  we  should  consider  these  errors  a  very 
creditable  witness  of  sound  Christianity.  We  notice  that  this 
ardent  Protestant  says  nothing  about  Monophysism  ;  so  maybe 

1  Howard  :    op.  cit.  175-176.     Mr.  Howard  excuses  many  of  these. 


THE   CHURCH   OF  MALABAR  377 

that  heresy  hardly  exists  in  Malabar  consciousness,  unless  (as 
is  still  more  likely)  the  editor  does  not  know  what  it  means.1 
But  he  would  certainly  have  denounced  confession  had  he  met  it. 
I  conclude  that  its  use  has  fallen  into  abeyance  here,  as  in  many 
Eastern  Churches. 

The  churches  of  the  Malabar  Jacobites  appear  to  be  all  much 
alike — halls,  not  very  large,  without  aisles,  with  a  choir  at  the 
east  separated  by  a  low  rail,  and  a  sanctuary  beyond  an 
arch.  The  building  has  a  simple  gabled  roof,  that  of  the  choir 
often  higher  than  the  rest.  At  both  ends  is  a  cross.  The  west 
front  is  ornamented  with  pilasters,  carving,  and  sometimes 
painted  decoration,  often  odd  and  barbarous  looking  to  us.2 
Inside,  from  the  chancel-arch  hangs  a  curtain  which  is  closed 
in  the  liturgy  during  the  preparatory  prayers  and  preparation 
of  the  offerings,  open  during  the  catechumens'  liturgy  till  the 
prayer  before  the  gospel,  open  again  during  the  gospel  and  till 
the  deacon  begins  the  Kathuliki  (see  p.  350),  closed  during  that, 
open  after  it,  closed  during  the  Communion  of  the  clergy,  open 
during  the  people's  Communion  and  till  the  end.  The  chancel 
is  slightly  raised ;  it  contains  the  altar,  around  which  (except  in 
front)  stands  a  screen,  carved  and  painted  with  angels  blowing 
trumpets,  crosses,  flowers,  elephants,  and  so  on.  On  either  side 
are  side-altars  or  credence-tables.3 

The  clergy  in  private  life  used  to  dress  in  white  cassocks,  but 
put  on  a  black  one  before  vesting.4  Mr.  Howard  found  one  of  the 
rival  Metropolitans  (the  successful  one)  dressed  in  "  a  handsome 

1  Howard  notes  that  Protestant  missionaries  are  often  ignorant  of  the 
very  existence  of  the  questions  discussed  atEphesus  and  Chalcedon  {op.  cit. 
p.  112,  n.). 

2  Their  tradition  says  that  once  their  churches  were  built  like  Hindu 
temples,  that  Thomas  "  Cannaneo  "  (p.  357)  changed  the  shape  to  the 
usual  one  in  Christendom  (see  Howard:  op.  cit.  16).  All  the  pictures  I 
have  seen  show  churches  which,  in  spite  of  the  normal  plan,  have  a  strange, 
rather  Hindu  look,  with  a  profusion  of  bad  surface  ornament.  As  an 
example,  see  the  picture  of  the  church  at  Karingachery  (said  to  be  16th 
century),  fig.  13. 

3  It  does  not  seem  clear  which  they  are  (Howard  :  op.  cit.  p.  123).  The 
Jacobites  allow  side-altars  (see  p.  344). 

4  Howard,  p.  133.  But  it  seems  that  a  white  cassock  is  now  the  mark  of 
the  Reformed  body.  The  Jacobite  priests  wear  dark  blue  (since  1875), 
the  Uniates  black  (Richards  :    op.  cit.  p.  7). 


37« 


THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 


purple  silk  robe  "  ;  1  his  poorer  rival  had  "  a  long  white  garment  " 
and  a  turban.2  Buchanan,  in  1806,  found  the  bishop  in  dark 
red  silk.3  It  does  not  appear  that  there  is  any  strict  rule  about 
his  dress.  Their  vestments  are  simply  those  of  the  Jacobites 
(see  pp.  344-345),*  but  with  Latin  additions  (bishops  wear  a  mitre, 
etc.).  And  all  their  rite  is  Jacobite  too.  Mr.  Howard  describes 
their  holy  liturgy,5  and  prints  the  whole  text  with  six  anaphoras  ;  6 
they  are  the  Jacobite  ones  of  St.  James,  St.  Peter,  the  Twelve 
Apostles,  St.  Dionysius,  St.  Xystus  and  John 
of  Haran.  Their  pronunciation  of  Syriac 
appears  to  be  curious,  as  one  would  expect 
in  people  who  talk  Malayalam.  Mr.  Howard 
gives  two  specimens  of  their  singing,  the 
Trisagion 7  and  a  cadence  he  heard  on  Palm 
Sunday.8  Both  are  diatonic,  so  I  suspect 
that  his  European  ear  has  rather  misled 
him.  They  accompany  their  chant  with 
clashing  cymbals  and  ringing  bells.  For  the 
rest  of  the  practices  of  the  Jacobites  of 
Malabar,  for  their  calendar,  fasts,  and  so  on, 
we  may  refer  to  those  of  all  Jacobites.9 

Mr.  Howard 10  ends  his  account  with  words 
which  I  gladly  transcribe  here.  "  From  the 
day  when  it  was  first  planted  in  Malabar  the 
gospel  has  ever  done  its  work  in  pious  souls. 
In  many  a  village,  such  as  Chattanoor,  Kayencolum,  and  others, 
remote  from  the  scenes  of  strife,  men  and  women  have  lived  quiet 
and  peaceable  lives  in  all  godliness  and  honesty,  and  in  faithful 
dependence  on  their  Redeemer.     In  the  Church  of  Travancore, 


FIG.   14. A  MALABAR 

BISHOP. 


1  Howard,  155.  2  lb.  162.  3  P.  56. 

4  Howard  describes  them  on  pp.  132-134.  The  frontispiece  of  his  book 
is  a  beautiful  picture  of  a  Katanar  vested.  The  vestments  are  absolutely 
Jacobite,  and  he  wears  a  cap  like  the  Copts  (see  p.  272).  Germann's 
frontispiece  shows  the  Metropolitan  in  ordinary  dress. 

5  Pp.  130-147.  6  Pp.  igi-337- 

7  Op.  cit.  p.  157.  8  lb.  166.  9  Above,  chap.  ix.  §§  3-5. 

10  He  is  a  most  sympathetic  Anglican  clergyman,  and  his  book  (The 
Christians  of  St.  Thomas  and  their  Liturgies,  Oxford,  1864)  is  very  good 
reading.  He  is  not  very  High  Church  ;  but  he  cannot  stand  the  ways  of 
the  C.M.S.     He  does  not  like  Rome  either. 


THE   CHURCH   OF  MALABAR  379 

as  elsewhere,  beneath  the  troubled  surface  there  has  ever  been, 
and  still  is,  a  deep  underflow  of  piety,  which,  from  its  gentle  and 
unobtrusive  character,  is  not  chronicled  in  human  records,  but 
whose  fruit  will  be  found  at  the  great  day  to  the  praise  and  glory 
of  God."  1 

Summary 

The  Church  of  Malabar  claims  to  have  been  founded  by  the 
Apostle  St.  Thomas.  Without  committing  ourselves  to  that,  we 
may  at  any  rate  grant  that  at  a  very  early  date,  perhaps  in  the 
2nd  century,  there  were  Christians  in  India.  Apparently,  in  the 
4th  century,  a  number  of  Persian  Christians,  fleeing  from  perse- 
cution, came  to  the  south-western  coast.  They  depended  on  the 
Katholikos  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon,used  his  rite  and  spoke  Syriac. 
At  least  from  that  time  Malabar  had  a  line  of  Metropolitans  or- 
dained and  sent  out  by  the  Katholikos.  This  is,  then,  one  of  the 
earliest  of  the  famous  missions  of  the  East  Syrian  Church.  Natur- 
ally, they  followed  their  mother  Church  into  the  Nestorian 
heresy.  In  the  16th  century  the  Portuguese  came,  and  at  the 
synod  of  Diamper  in  1599  made  this  Church  Uniate.  But  there 
was  a  reluctant  party  which  returned  to  schism  as  soon  as  the 
Portuguese  were  driven  out  in  1663.  However,  the  schismatics 
got  their  new  line  of  bishops,  not  from  the  Nestorians,  but  from 
the  Jacobites.  They  became  Jacobite,  probably  understanding 
little  of  the  issue  involved,  and  adopted  the  Jacobite  rite.  Since 
then  they  have  quarrelled  incessantly  among  themselves,  and 
have  had  continual  mutual  schisms  and  rival  Metropolitans. 
The  majority  are  Uniates.  Among  the  others,  most  are  Jacobites, 
now  divided  into  two  parties.  The  Church  Missionary  Society 
has  formed  a  Reformed  sect,  called  Mar  Thomas  Christians. 
There  are  a  small  Nestorian  body  and  several  other  sects. 

1  Op.  cit.  167.  I  am  also  tempted  to  copy  his  conversation  with  a 
Malabar  deacon  at  Kottayam.  It  seems  to  me  most  beautiful,  in  its  bad 
Syriac  and  pigeon  English  :  "  H.  :  You  know  Yeshua  ?  the  great  God, 
Yeshua  Christ,  God  and  Man  :  What  you  call  him  ?  Deacon  :  Yeshua 
Meshiha,  Aloha  dilan.  H.  :  What  is  that  ?— Aloha  dilan  ?  Tell  English. 
D.  :  Yeshua  Meshiha,  our  God.  H. :  Yes.  He  plenty  love  man.  He  die  for 
us.     It  is  great  business  to  serve  him  ;  and  to  tell  his  love  "  (pp.  156-157) . 


PART  IV 

THE    ARMENIANS 


Of  the  Churches  now  Monophysite  the  last  to  accept  the  heresy 
was  that  of  the  Armenians.  Historically,  or  at  any  rate  archaeo- 
logically,  they  are  not  the  most  important  of  these  lesser  Eastern 
Churches.  Their  ecclesiastical  arrangements  date  from  about  the 
4th  century,  and  are  mainly  only  a  local  variety  of  those  of 
Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  also  the  direct  parent  of  the  Byzantine 
rite  ;  so  that  Armenian  usages  are  mostly  a  mere  variant  of  those 
of  the  Orthodox.  The  general  impression  of  their  Church  is  that 
it  is  not  very  ancient  (at  least  in  its  laws,  customs  and  rites), 
though  it  has  one  or  two  archaic  features,  that  it  does  not  repre- 
sent an  independent  tradition  from  the  earliest  age.  For  this 
reason  the  Armenians  seem  less  interesting  than  the  Nestorians 
or  Copts.  On  the  other  hand,  they  form  considerably  the  largest 
Church  discussed  in  this  book.  The  Armenian  nation  and  Church 
have  played  a  great  part  in  the  East  in  later  times.  From  the 
point  of  view  of  practical  importance,  of  size  and  influence, 
even  (in  spite  of  the  massacres)  of  prosperity,  the  Armenian 
Church  is  undoubtedly  the  second  most  important  (after  the 
Orthodox)  in  the  East.  The  Armenians,  too,  have  a  glorious 
list  of  saints  and  martyrs  ;  especially  during  the  last  century 
they  have  borne  ghastly  treatment,  so  that  their  very  name 
suggests  horrors  and  blood. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH  IN  THE  PAST 

This  chapter  contains  a  summary  outline  of  political  Armenian 
history,  with  some  account  of  the  people,  the  story  of  their  con- 
version to  Christianity,  the  organization  of  their  Church  in  the 
past,  their  schism  from  the  rest  of  Christendom,  their  acceptance 
of  Monophysism,  and  so  an  outline  of  the  history  of  their  Church 
down  to  our  own  time. 

i.  Political  History 

Although  we  now  know  the  Armenians  as  scattered  through 
Turkey,  Persia,  Russia,  having  outlying  colonies  in  India,  America, 
almost  all  over  the  world,  there  is,  or  was,  a  country  Armenia,  the 
original  home,  still  the  nucleus  of  their  nation.  Armenia  lies 
west  of  the  Caspian  Sea  towards  (but  south  of)  the  Black  Sea. 
In  its  widest  extent  it  stretches  from  the  Caucasus  mountains  on 
the  north  to  the  mountains  of  Kurdistan  on  the  south.  West  of 
Armenia  come  Pontus  and  Cappadocia.  The  Euphrates  runs 
through  the  land,  dividing  it  into  a  much  larger  portion  east  and 
a  small  part  west  of  the  river.  Following  the  later  Roman 
geographers,  we  thus  divide  it  into  Greater  Armenia,  east  of  the 
Euphrates,  and  Lesser  Armenia,1  west.  It  is  a  high  mountain- 
land,  divided  into  two  main  river-courses,  of  which  one  slopes 
down  to  the  Caspian  Sea,  the  other  southwards,  with  the  Euphra- 
tes, towards  Mesopotamia,  and  eventually  to  the  Persian  Gulf. 

1  Divided  into  two  provinces,  Armenia  prima  north,  and  secunda  south. 

383 


384   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

There  are  high  valleys  and  tablelands,  thickly  wooded.  It  is  a  fer- 
tile land  and  (we  may  note  this  at  once  as  profoundly  affecting  its 
history)  it  was  destined  to  be  a  frontier  land  between  the  Roman 
Empire  and  Persia,  and  then  between  Turkey  and  Persia.  Here, 
at  the  dawn  of  history,  dwelt  a  people  who  called  themselves 
Chaldini  ;  the  Assyrians  called  them  Urartu.  In  the  8th  century 
B.C.  this  people  formed  a  powerful  state,  against  which  the 
Assyrians  fought.  Then  the  Assyrians  overcame  them,  destroyed 
their  capital,  and  made  them  a  province  of  Assyria.  The  Chaldini 
were  Turanians,1  speaking  a  language  akin  to  that  of  the  Sum- 
merians  and  the  later  Ural-altaic  nations.  They  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  Armenians.  About  the  6th  century  B.C.,  as  part 
of  the  great  Aryan  migration,  an  Aryan  people  poured  into  this 
land.  These  are  the  Armenians.  Their  language  is  Aryan,  form- 
ing a  class  of  its  own,  together  with  (apparently)  the  hardly-known 
Phrygian.2  Attempts  to  connect  the  Armenian  language  more 
closely  with  Persian  are  a  failure.  It  is  a  special  branch  of  the 
Aryan  family,  standing  in  appearance  strangely  apart  from  all  the 
others.  It  has  the  most  amazing  combinations  of  consonants  ; 
except  for  its  inflections,  the  build  of  its  grammar  and  one  or 
two  words,  it  would  hardly  seem  Aryan  at  all.  "  Armenian  "  is 
the  name  given  to  this  people  by  the  Greeks  (Apfievios,  'Ap/Wa) ; 
also  used  by  the  Persians  (Armina),  and  in  all  European  languages. 
They  call  themselves  Haikh  (plural  of  Hai)  and  their  country 
Hayastan.  They  have  wonderful  legends  concerning  their  descent 
—  from  an  eponymous  hero  Haik,  grandson  of  Japhet,  from  whom 
they  say  they  descend.3  After  him  in  their  legends  follow  various 
supposed  ancestors,  taken  from  the  Bible.  Noah  plays  a  great 
part  in  their  traditions.     The  heart  of  Armenia  is  Mount  Ararat, 

1  The  name  Turanian  is  becoming  old-fashioned.  At  any  rate,  they 
were  neither  Semites  nor  Aryans,  which  is  rather  a  negative  but  not  alto- 
gether a  useless  point  of  classification.  Chaldini  is,  of  course,  a  Hellenized 
or  Latinized  form  of  their  name.  It  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
"  Chaldaean."  Naturally  people  have  discussed  the  relation  between  the 
Chaldini  and  the  mysterious  Hittites. 

2  One  theory  of  the  Hittite  inscriptions  is  that  they  are  old  Armenian. 

3  N.  Ter  Gregor  :  History  of  Armenia  (London  :  John  Heywood,  n.d.,  but 
1897)  tells  us  that  the  Garden  of  Eden  was  in  Armenia  (p.  15),  and  that 
his  people  are  three  centuries  older  than  the  Jews,  inasmuch  as  Haik  was 
born  B.C.  2277,  whereas  Abraham  was  born  only  in  b.c.  1996. 


THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH  IN   THE  PAST     385 

where  they  say  the  ark  rested  after  the  flood.  Around  this  are 
all  manner  of  stories.  They  show  the  places  where  he  got  out  of 
the  ark,  where  he  first  planted  the  vine,  and  they  have  a  piece  of 
the  ark  as  a  relic  in  their  monastery  at  Etshmiadzin.1 

Returning  to  history,  we  find  the  Armenians  first  under  the 
Medes,  then  under  Persian  authority.  They  rose  with  other 
vassal  nations  against  Darius  I  (b.c.  521-486),  but  were  subdued. 
Alexander  (b.c.  336-323)  included  Armenia  in  his  vast  empire  ; 
when  this  broke  up  Armenia  fell  to  the  lot  of  the  Seleucid  kings. 
When  Antiochus  III  (b.c.  223-187)  was  defeated  by  the  Romans 
(b.c.  190)  Armenia  for  the  first  time  became  an  independent  state. 
But  it  was  not  ruled  by  a  native  king.  Two  Greek  generals  of 
Antiochus,  Artaxias  and  Zariadris,  proclaimed  themselves  inde- 
pendent kings.  Artaxias  ruled  most  of  Armenia  proper,  Zariadris 
made  a  smaller  kingdom  (Sophene)  in  the  south-east.  The  rule 
of  Artaxias 's  successors  spread  in  the  country  round.  Armenia 
became  a  great  power.  But  the  Parthian  kings  of  the  second 
Persian  Empire  (see  pp.  21,  23)  conquered  the  country,  and  made 
it  a  feudal  state  ruled  by  their  satraps.  Dikran  (Tigranes)  I 
(c.  90-55  b.c),  a  descendant  of  Artaxias,  rose  against  the  Persians 
and  made  himself  independent.  His  reign  is  the  most  glorious 
episode  in  Armenian  history  ;  but  he  was  not  a  native  Armenian. 
However,  by  this  time,  no  doubt,  his  family  had  become  so 
practically  ;  he  rules  as  Armenian  king ;  Armenians  have  a  right 
to  be  proud  of  his  memory.  He  incorporated  the  other  Armenian 
state  (Sophene),  and  made  a  number  of  neighbouring  princes  pay 
him  tribute.  In  B.C.  86  he  conquered  what  was  left  of  the 
Seleucid  kingdom  in  Syria,  and  so  made  Armenia  a  very  great 
power.  A  national  poetic  literature  has  grown  up  around  this 
"  King  of  Kings,"  2  and  still  the  persecuted  Armenian  looks  back 
to  the  age  when  subj  ect  princes  obeyed  Dikran  .3  But  this  glorious 
period  did  not  last  long.     The  Roman  power  advanced  in  Asia, 

1  All  the  story  of  Noah's  ark  on  Mount  Ararat  is  a  foreign  tradition 
adopted  by  the  Armenians.  Moses  of  Khoren  (see  p.  396)  knows  nothing 
of  it.     Cf.  Gen.  viii.  4. 

2  He  copied  the  usual  Persian  title. 

3  An  illustration  in  N.  Ter  Gregor  (op.  cit.  p.  70),  showing  Dikran  on  a 
horse  with  four  captive  kings  in  so  many  crowns  at  his  bridle,  shows  the 
Armenian  imagination  of  their  hero. 

25 


386        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

and  reduced  Armenia  to  its  own  boundaries  in  B.C.  66.  It  then 
became  a  helpless  vassal  state  dominated  alternately  by  Rome 
and  Persia.  These  powers  set  up  subject  kings  in  turn.  Trajan 
(a.d.  98-117)  made  the  land  a  Roman  province.  But  it  came 
again  under  Persian  influence.  In  227  the  Sassanid  kings  usurped 
power  in  Persia  (p.  23) .  The  Armenian  princes  took  the  side  of 
the  deposed  line  (the  Arsacides),  and  so  their  land  was  persecuted 
by  the  usurpers.  A  king  of  Armenia  (Khosrov)  was  murdered 
in  238  (?)  by  order  of  the  Persian  Government,  and  a  determined 
attempt  was  made  to  force  the  Persian  state  religion  (Mazdaeism) 
on  the  unwilling  people.  Then  in  261  King  Trdat  (Tiridates) 
II,  who  had  fled  to  Roman  territory,  came  back,  drove  out  the 
Persians,  and  again  made  the  country  independent,  though  with 
considerable  real  dependence  on  Rome.  During  this  time  Armenia 
became  Christian.  Julian's  unsuccessful  Persian  war  (363)  and 
the  peace  his  successor  Jovian  (363-364)  was  forced  to  make  after 
it,  again  handed  over  Armenia  to  the  Persians.  King  Arshak 
(Arsaces)  was  deposed,  carried  off  to  Persia,  and  there  died  in 
captivity.  The  Emperor  Valens  (364-378)  was  able  to  restore 
what  was  a  valuable  bulwark-state  to  the  empire,  and  made 
Arshak's  son  Pap  king  (367-374).  Theodosius  (379~395)  made 
the  deplorable  mistake  of  dividing  Armenia  between  Rome  and 
Persia  ;  whereas  he  should,  at  any  cost,  have  maintained  a  strong 
kingdom  between  the  empire  and  its  enemy.  Manuel  of  Mamikon 
(378-385)  was  the  last  real  king.  In  the  division  Persia  got  four- 
fifths  of  Armenia,  Rome  only  a  small  corner  in  the  West.  Tribu- 
tary kings,  hardly  more  than  titular,  ruled  now  under  Persian 
supremacy  till  428  ;  then  the  Persians  deposed  them  and  sent 
governors  to  hold  the  country.  Armenia  was  now  all  Christian, 
hated  the  persecuting  Persians  ;  its  sympathies  were  all  for  the 
Christian  Empire.  It  rebelled  many  times  without  success,  till 
the  Emperor  Maurice  (582-602)  obtained  it  from  the  Persian  King, 
and  again  made  it  a  Roman  province.  So  far  we  have  seen 
Armenia  bandied  about  between  Rome  and  Persia.  Then  came 
the  Arabs.  About  the  year  639  they  invaded  the  country  from 
Mesopotamia  and  ravaged  it  horribly.  In  642  they  took  the  city 
of  Duin,  or  Tovin,  massacred  a  great  number  of  its  inhabitants, 
and  carried  off  the  rest  into  slavery.     Now  the  unhappy  Arme- 


THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH  IN   THE  PAST     387 

nians  had  to  submit  to  new  masters.  Constantine  IV  (668-685) 
and  Justinian  II  (685-695)  managed  for  a  time  to  reconquer  parts 
of  the  land,  but  each  time  the  Arabs  came  back. 

Armenia  is  handed  about  between  the  empire  and  the  Khalif. 
The  people  were  already  Monophysites  ;  the  Romans  persecuted 
them  almost  as  much  as  the  Moslems.  On  the  whole,  the  Arabs 
held  the  country  most  of  the  time  and  ravaged  it  without  mercy. 
Then  a  native  prince,  Ashot  I,  in  856  succeeded  in  founding  a 
dynasty  (the  Bagratids)  under  the  supremacy  of  the  Khalif.  He 
ruled  at  Ani  on  the  river  Arpachai,  south-east  of  Kars,  over  a 
considerable  territory,  including  Iberia.  This  line  of  semi- 
independent  Kings  of  Armenia  lasted  two  centuries  (856-1071)  ; 
it  was  not  altogether  an  unhappy  time  for  the  country,  though 
there  were  continual  wars  with  neighbouring  Moslem  Amirs,  who 
acknowledged  the  suzerainty  of  the  same  Khalif.1  Then  the 
Selguk  Turks  under  Alp  Arslan  (p.  27)  devastate  Armenia. 
Gagik  II  (1042-1045),  the  last  king  of  this  line,  is  taken  to  Con- 
stantinople. In  1064  Alp  Arslan  took  Ani ;  in  1071  its  cathedral 
is  turned  into  a  mosque.  After  that  the  Byzantines,  Turks  and 
Tatars  seize  parts  of  the  country  and  fight  over  it  ;  but  some 
small  native  princes  manage  to  maintain  their  independence.2 
The  systematic  devastation  of  the  country  by  the  Turks  put  an 
end  to  Armenia  itself  as  a  state.  The  original  home  of  the  race 
(Greater  Armenia)  was  never  again  a  political  unit.  During  this 
period  of  devastation  by  the  Turks,  and  then  again  by  the  Mongols 
in  the  13th  century  (p.  97),  began  the  great  exodus  of  Armenians. 
Fleeing  from  the  horrors  of  their  fatherland,  great  numbers 
wandered  out  to  seek  peace  abroad.  They  came  to  Asia  Minor, 
Persia,3  Thrace,  Macedonia,  as  far  as  the  Danube,  to  South  Russia, 

1  F.  Tournebize  :  Histoire  politique  et  religieuse  de  I'Armenie  (Paris,  s.a. 
but  1910),  chap.  ii.  pp.  104-134,  gives  a  good  and  readable  account  of  the 
reigns  of  the  nine  kings  of  the  Bagratid  line  ;  see  also  Lynch  :  Armenia, 
Travels  and  Sketches  (2  vols.,  Longmans,  1901),  i.  334-392  ;  "  Ani  and  the 
Armenian  Kingdom  of  the  Middle  Ages." 

2  Ani  was  again  made  Christian  by  David  II,  King  of  Georgia.  In  1239 
Jenghiz  Khan  ravaged  the  city;  in  1319  an  earthquake  ruined  what  was 
left.  It  is  now  only  a  heap  of  picturesque  ruins  (see  Lynch  :  op.  cit.  i. 
367-391). 

3  In  1614  Shah  Abbas  carried  off  a  colony  of  Armenians  to  New  Julfa, 
near  Ispahan,  and  built  them  a  "  new  Etshmiadzin  "  there. 


388        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Poland  and  Hungary.  In  all  these  places  they  founded  colonies, 
keeping  their  language,  religion  and  national  feeling.  This  wan- 
dering became  a  special  note  of  the  Armenians  ;  it  is  one  of  the 
striking  likenesses  between  them  and  the  Jews.  Like  the  Jews, 
they  formed  foreign  colonies  in  many  countries  ;  they  had  special 
quarters  in  cities.  Obeying  the  law  of  the  land  in  which  they 
found  themselves,  they  yet  always  remained  a  foreign  element, 
in  no  way  amalgamating  with  the  native  population.  Such  is 
still  their  condition  in  many  parts  of  the  world. 

A  great  number  fled  westward  into  Cappadocia,  Cilicia  and 
towards  the  Taurus  mountains  in  the  south  of  Asia  Minor.  Here 
they  founded  a  new  Armenia  (Cilician  Armenia),  and  established 
a  kingdom  (their  last  independence)  which  plays  an  important  part 
in  both  ecclesiastical  and  political  history.  Rupen,  a  relation  of 
the  last  Bagratid  King,  Gagik  II,  came  to  Cilicia  with  the  remains 
of  the  nobility.  In  1080  he  made  himself  master  of  a  fortress  on 
the  Taurus.  Here  he  founded  a  principality,  which  after  a  century 
became  an  independent  kingdom.  The  Crusaders  were  already 
in  Syria.  At  first  Rupen  and  his  successors  acknowledged  the 
suzerainty  alternately  of  the  Latin  Prince  of  Antioch  and  of  the 
Roman  Empire  at  Constantinople.  They  were  content  with  the 
title  baron.  But  they  obtained  a  large  territory  in  Cilicia.  Their 
capital  was  Sis,  north-east  of  Adana,  on  an  affluent  of  the  river 
Pyramus.1  A  new  factor  now  enters,  Latin  influence  on  Arme- 
nians, of  which  many  traces  still  remain  (p.  416).  The  Barons 
of  Sis,  remembering  the  long  persecution  of  the  Byzantines,  hating 
Moslems  as  their  deadly  enemies,  eagerly  welcomed  the  Crusaders. 
When  these  passed  through  Cilicia  they  supplied  them  with  food, 
horses  and  weapons.  They  joined  them  in  their  war  and  inter- 
married with  the  families  of  Frankish  princes.  So  Cilician  Armenia 
was  very  considerably  Latinized.  The  Church  became  Uniate 
(p.  415)  ;  the  state  adopted  Western  titles,  customs,  law ;  it 
even  used  French  and  Latin  for  its  official  documents.  There 
were  one  or  two  quarrels  with  the  Franks,  but  they  did  not  prevent 
the  general  good  understanding.  Leo  (Ghevont)  I,  Baron  of  Sis 
(1129-1139),  fought  Byzantines  and  Turks  successfully;  then  he 
fought  Raymond  of  Poitiers,  Prince  of  Antioch  (1136).     But  he 

1  They  had  a  Patriarch  of  Sis,  whose  successor  still  bears  the  title  (pp.  41 7, 430)* 


THE  ARMENIAN   CHURCH  IN   THE   PAST    389 

made  peace  again,  and  an  alliance  against  the  Emperor.  Theo- 
dore (Thoros,  1141-1168)  spread  his  barony  at  the  expense  of  his 
neighbours.  It  was  time  to  make  it  a  kingdom.  This  was  done 
by  Leo  II,  the  Great  (1185-1219).  When  Frederick  Red-beard 
(1152-1190)  came  a-crusading  (1189),  Baron  Leo  got  him  to 
promise  that  he,  as  Emperor,  would  make  Leo  a  king.  Frederick 
was  drowned  in  Cilicia  (1190),  but  his  son  Henry  VI  (1190-1197) 
kept  his  father's  promise,  acknowledged  Leo  as  King  of  Armenia, 
and  promised  his  protection.  The  Armenians  of  Cilicia  were 
already  Uniate,  so  Pope  Celestine  III  (1191-1198)  sent  the 
new  king  a  crown,  and  Cardinal  Conrad  of  Wittelsbach,  Arch- 
bishop of  Mainz,  crowned  him  with  it  in  the  Church  of  the  Holy 
Wisdom  at  Tarsus,  on  the  Epiphany,  n 99.  The  (Uniate)  Arme- 
nian Katholikos  of  Sis  (p.  416),  Gregory  Abirad,  anointed  the 
king.  When  the  Roman  Emperor  at  Constantinople  (Alexios  III, 
1195-1203)  heard  of  these  relations  between  Armenia  and  the 
Crusaders,  he  was  naturally  alarmed,  and  he  sent  another  crown 
with  an  invitation  that  Leo  II  should  rather  join  the  Orthodox. 
Leo  appears  to  have  kept  this  crown  too.  As  king  he  waged 
wars  with  varying  success,  died  in  1219,  and  was  buried  at  Sis. 
He  is,  after  Dikran  I,  the  great  political  hero  of  Armenia.1  The 
line  of  kings  of  the  house  of  Rupen  lasted  till  1342.  Meanwhile, 
the  old  native  land,  Greater  Armenia,  was  ravaged  by  Jenghiz 
Khan  and  his  Mongols  (1220).  Sultan  Baibars  of  Egypt  (p.  245) 
came  on  the  scenes  in  Syria  and  Asia  Minor  and  defeated  the 
Armenians  in  1266.  Since  the  fall  of  the  last  Latin  possessions  in 
Syria  ('Akka  in  1291),  the  kingdom  of  Cilician  Armenia,  their  ally 
and  dependent,  decayed,  oppressed  by  enemies  on  every  side.  In 
1342  the  crown  came  legitimately  to  Guy  de  Lusignan,2  first 

1  We  have  noted  the  Latinization  of  his  kingdom.  He  appears  like  a 
Frank  king.  He  made  himself  a  coat  of  arms.  Hitherto  Armenians  had 
borne  on  their  standards  an  eagle,  a  dove,  or  a  dragon.  He  made  a  lion 
couchant  his  royal  arms  (presumably  or  in  a  field  gules  ;  see  Tournebize  : 
op.  cit.  186),  which  is  at  any  rate  one  of  the  coats  which  has  most  claim  to 
be  the  national  arms  of  Armenia.  The  question  of  the  Armenian  arms 
is  naturally  now  in  abeyance.  The  Armenians  have  no  time  for  heraldry, 
and  the  Turk  does  not  encourage  national  arms  among  his  subject  races, 
certainly  not  among  Armenians. 

2  Guy  was  son  of  Amaury  de  Lusignan  and  Zabel  (Isabelle),  aunt  of 
Leo  IV. 


390        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

cousin  of  the  last  Armenian  king,  Leo  IV1  (1320-1342).  Guy 
(1342-1344)  fought  valiantly  against  Turks  and  Egyptians  ;  he 
lost  nothing  of  the  land  he  had  inherited.  He  was  murdered  by 
traitors  in  1344.  A  usurper  (Constantine  II,  1344-1363)  followed  ; 
but  the  princes  of  the  house  of  Lusignan  came  back.  Leo  V,2 
the  last  king  who  ever  reigned  over  Armenians,  succeeded  in  1374. 
But  the  Amir  of  Halib  (Aleppo)  attacked  him,  and  after  a  year 
of  war  finally  conquered  the  whole  country.  The  king  was  taken 
prisoner ;  for  some  time  he  was  in  danger  of  death  for  the  faith 
which  he  refused  heroically  to  deny.  Eventually  the  Amir  ac- 
cepted a  ransom.  Leo  came  to  France,  died  in  1393,  and  was 
buried  in  the  church  of  the  Celestine  monks  at  Paris.3  That  was 
the  last  ray  of  the  old  glory  of  the  Armenian  kingdom.4  The 
Ottoman  Turks  under  Bayazet  II  (1481-1512)  easily  added 
all  the  Armenian  lands  to  their  vast  empire.  These  were  now 
the  frontier-land  between  Turkey  and  Persia.  The  Armenians, 
always  a  weak  folk  on  the  border  of  two  great  powers,  suffered 
equally  from  Turks  and  Persians.  It  was  policy  to  keep  one's 
frontier-land  a  desert,  so  that  the  enemy  should  find  no  provisions 
there  if  he  invaded.  The  Turks  systematically  ravaged  the  land 
with  this  idea.  In  1575  a  Persian  invasion  brought  fresh  horrors. 
In  the  17th  century  Shah  Abbas  (1 586-1628)  fought  with  the 
Turks  over  what  had  once  been  Armenia.  In  the  18th  century 
an  Armenian  hero  David  (f  1728)  for  a  short  time  maintained  a 
successful  rebellion.  Then  Russia  appears  on  the  scene.  The 
Armenians  had  already  appealed  to  Peter  the  Great  (1689-1725) 
and  Catherine  II  (1762-1796)  for  protection,  without  result.  In 
1829,  after  the  Russian-Turkish  war,  Russia  annexed  the  east  of 

1  Otherwise  Leo  V.  2  Or  Leo  VI. 

3  On  his  tomb  they  wrote  :  "  Cy  gist  tres  noble  et  excellent  prince  Lyon 
de  Lysingne,  quint,  roy  latin  du  royaume  d'Armenie,  qui  rendit  1'ame  a 
Dieu,  a  Paris,  l'an  1393.  Priez  pour  lui  "  (Tournebize  :  op.  cit.  p.  751). 
His  title  "  King  of  Armenia,"  went  to  his  cousin  James  I  (de  Lusignan), 
King  of  Cyprus  (1382-1398).  From  then  to  Catherine  Cornaro  (1474-1489) 
the  Kings  of  Cyprus  (and  Jerusalem)  added  Armenia  to  their  title.  She 
sold  her  rights  to  the  Republic  of  Venice,  which  advanced  a  claim  on  the 
shadowy  kingdom  of  Armenia.  But  the  house  of  Savoy  inherits  (through 
Charlotte  de  Lusignan,  f  1487,  who  married  Louis  of  Savoy)  the  empty 
titles  of  Jerusalem,  Cyprus  and  Armenia. 

4  Most  of  the  above  account  is  condensed  from  Tournebize  :  Hist,  polit. 
etjelig.de  I'Armenie. 


THE   ARMENIAN   CHURCH   IN    THE   PAST     391 

Transcaucasia  as  far  as  the  river  Aras,  and  thus  joined  a  great 
part  of  Armenia,  and  their  holy  place  Etshmiadzin,  to  a  Christian 
Empire.  But,  on  the  whole,  Orthodox  Russia  has  treated  the 
heretical  Armenians  almost  as  badly  as  the  Turks  did  (pp.  420-421). 
Meanwhile  Armenians  had  wandered  all  over  Eastern  Europe 
and  into  Persia  and  India.  They  no  longer  had  a  fatherland. 
But  wherever  they  are,  they  keep  their  nationality  in  the  most 
wonderful  way.  Other  nations  under  such  circumstances  have 
disappeared  from  the  face  of  the  earth.  The  Armenian,  wherever 
he  may  be,  whatever  Government  he  may  be  forced  to  obey,  is 
always  an  Armenian.  They  keep  together  by  their  language  and 
their  religion.  Undoubtedly,  the  national  Church  (which  in  the 
truest  sense  is  their  "  nation  ")  has  been  the  main  factor  in  their 
preservation.  At  least,  the  case  of  Armenia  justifies  the  Turkish 
idea  that  religious  communion  makes  a  millah.  They  are  not  now 
at  all  a  warlike  people  ;  they  have  the  reputation  of  being  cowards. 
They  were  never  an  artistic  people,  nor  have  they  ever  produced 
anything  original  in  literature.  They  are  bankers,  money-changers, 
money-lenders,  merchants.  There  is  an  Armenian  colony,  in  an 
Armenian  quarter,  in  every  town  in  the  Levant.  In  spite  of 
massacres  and  persecutions,  they  have  an  extraordinary  way  of 
becoming  prosperous.  In  all  this  their  likeness  to  the  Jews  is 
remarkable.  Like  the  Jews,  they  are  a  separate  nation  without  a 
country,  held  together  by  their  religion.  The  difference  is  that 
the  Armenians  have  still  the  shadow,  the  relic  of  a  country  left. 
In  a  sense  there  still  is  an  Armenia.  Besides  the  scattered  colonies 
of  merchants  and  bankers  in  old  Armenia,  there  is  there  a  native 
population  of  peasants,  though  mixed  with  Kurds,  Turks,  Greeks, 
Syrians.1  They  are  not  a  popular  race.  The  Orthodox  Triodion 
till  lately  contained  a  strange  rubric  :  "It  should  be  known  that  ) 
in  this  week  (before  Lent)  the  thrice-abominable  Armenians  (  y 
(ot  rpio-Karaparot  ap/xeViot)  keep  their  accursed  fast,  which  they  call  -> 
Artziburion  ;  but  we  eat  cheese  and  eggs  every  day,  refuting 
their  dogma  of  this  heresy."  2  Now  there  may  be  some  question 
as  to  whether  it  be  a  good  plan  to  call  other  people  thrice- 
abominable  in  liturgical  books,  but  I  fear  few  Christians  in  the 

1  See  Sir  Charles  Eliot  :   Turkey  in  Europe  (E.  Arnold,  1908),  p.  383. 

2  Nilles  :   Kalendarium  manuale  (Innsbruck,  ed.  2,  1897),  ii.  p.  8. 


392   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

East  would  dispute  the  justice  of  this  amiable  epithet.  It  is  one 
of  the  misfortunes  of  this  unhappy  race  that  nobody  likes  them. 
Long  ago  St.  Gregory  of  Nanzianos  said :  "  I  do  not  find  the 
Armenians  a  noble  race  ;  they  are  very  sly  and  vicious  "  ; x  most 
of  his  countrymen  would  still  endorse  that  statement.  Armenians 
are  not  an  attractive  race.  It  is  true  that  the  ghastly  persecution 
they  have  suffered  should  make  people  sympathize  with  them  ; 
but  they  seem  to  cringe  and  weep  under  it  only,  they  never  show 
fight ; 2  so  even  the  persecution  has  rather  increased  their 
neighbours'  scorn.  They  share  the  unpopularity  of  the  Jew  for 
much  the  same  reason.  The  people  of  the  near  East  conceive  the 
Armenian  as  a  sharp  man  of  business,  a  money-lender  at  usury, 
too  clever  for  the  simple  peasant  he  despoils.  Certainly  the 
hatred  of  them  and  the  readiness  Kurds  and  Turks  show  to  mas- 
sacre them  comes  from  economic  rather  than  religious  reasons. 
For  why  should  Monophysites  be  more  hateful  to  Moslems  than 
the  Orthodox  ?  And  their  fellow-Monophysites  the  Jacobites  are 
not  massacred.  It  is  the  financial  prosperity  of  Armenians  and  the 
idea  that  they  have  sucked  their  money  from  guileless  peasants 
which  makes  them  so  hated.  Many  people,  even  Christians,  will 
tell  you  that  the  savage  Kurd  who  massacres  has  at  least  the 
virtues  of  a  savage  ;  he  is  brave,  hospitable,  honourable  in  his 
way.  So  they  say  they  prefer  him  to  the  Armenian  who  can 
.only  weep  when  he  is  attacked,3  but  who,  in  spite  of  everything, 
comes  up  again  by  clever  business  dealings. 

The  particular  Armenian  massacres  which  aroused  the  horror 
of  the  world  did  not  begin  till  the  latter  half  of  the  19th  century. 
Till  then  the  Armenians  were  not  worse  treated  than  other  Rayahs 
in  Turkey.  But,  more  obviously  than  in  the  case  of  any  other 
millah,  they  have  a  claim  to  separate  national  existence  and 
national  aspirations.     During  the  Russian  war  (1829),  tneri  by 

1  Oratio  xliii.  17  (P.G.  xxxvi.  517). 

2  I  have  heard  stories  of  one  Kurd  climbing  up  into  a  hay-loft  where 
about  ten  Armenians  were  hiding,  quietly  killing  them  all,  and  then  coming 
down  again.     The  Armenians  wept,  and  prayed  him  to  spare  them. 

3  I  think  certainly  the  most  astonishing  part  of  the  story  of  the  massacres 
is  the  ease  with  which  whole  districts  of  Armenians  were  calmly  killed  by 
quite  small  numbers  of  Kurds  at  their  convenience.  There  does  not  ever 
seem  to  have  been  even  a  show  of  resistance. 


THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH  IN   THE  PAST     393 

the  spread  of  Western  ideas,  of  education,  and  so  on,  the  memory 
of  their  lost  independence  began  to  foment  in  them.  The  Turks 
were  forced  to  give  them  certain  charters  of  comparative  freedom  x 
which  only  whetted  their  appetite  for  more.  So  began  plots  and 
secret  societies.  One  celebrated  secret  society,  the  Hintshak,  was 
founded  in  Paris  in  1887.  Treasonable  newspapers  were  printed 
abroad  and  smuggled  into  the  country.  The  Turk  has  a  wild 
terror  of  secret  societies,  plots  and  conspiracies.  He  knew,  too, 
that  Europe  sympathized  with  the  Armenians  ;  he  saw  them  be- 
coming more  and  more  rich  and  powerful.  Then  came  the 
massacres.  I  do  not  propose  to  tell  again  the  details  of  a  story 
which  is  still  fresh  in  everyone's  memory.  The  point  to  remember 
is  that  it  is  not  a  case  of  a  lawless  mob  attacking  Armenians  on 
their  own  initiative.  No  doubt  the  Kurds  were  quite  ready  to 
kill  their  neighbours  ;  but  in  every  case  they  were  deliberately 
appointed  to  do  so  by  the  Government.  The  soldiers  not  only 
gave  no  protection,  they  helped  to  massacre.  The  signal  for  the 
beginning  and  end  of  the  slaying,  looting,  burning  was  given 
from  the  barracks  or  the  Koniah.  The  massacres  were  done  in 
obedience  to  secret  (not  even  very  secret)  orders  from  the  Yildiz 
Kioshk.  Why  'Abd-ulHamid  II  organized  these  massacres  is  not 
easy  to  say.  Perhaps  it  was  merely  to  terrify  and  repress  a 
people  whose  national  consciousness  was  growing ;  perhaps  in 
some  characteristically  tortuous  way  he  hoped  to  provoke  inter- 
ference from  Europe,  and  to  gain  something  from  it.2  In  any 
case,  the  blood  of  the  Armenians  remains  the  reddest  stain  on  the 
hands  of  that  bloody  tyrant.  In  1890  the  massacres  began  at 
Erzerum.  In  1893  there  was  another  massacre  and  ghastly 
torturing.  In  1894  there  was  a  great  massacre  in  the  Sasun 
district.  The  chief  massacre  of  all  was  from  October  to  Novem- 
ber 1895.  This  began  in  Trebizond,  and  spread  throughout  the 
Armenian   lands.     Between    fifty   thousand   and    one   hundred 

1  The  so-called  "  Armenian  Constitution  "  of  i860,  the  Convention  of 
1878,  etc.  (Eliot  :    op.  cit.  395-398). 

2  Sir  Charles  Eliot  thinks  that  "  the  massacres  seemed  to  aim  at  such  a 
reduction  of  the  Armenian  population  that  it  should  be  impossible  to 
contend  they  were  the  predominating  element  in  any  district  "  (Turkey 
in  Europe,  p.  408).  Deliberate  massacres  as  a  move  in  politics  seem  in- 
conceivable to  us  ;   but  then  we  are  not  Turks. 


394   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

thousand  were  killed,  forty  thousand  children  were  left  orphans, 
enormous  numbers  perished  from  starvation  as  the  land  was 
ravaged.  In  1896  were  fresh  massacres  in  Zaitun  and  Van. 
In  the  same  year  (following  the  attempt  of  some  Armenians  on 
the  Ottoman  bank  at  Galata)  the  Government  let  loose  a  horde 
of  Kurds  and  Lazes  armed  with  clubs,  who  killed  about  six 
thousand  Armenians  in  the  streets  of  Constantinople,  under 
the  eye  of  the  Diplomatic  Corps.  The  Embassies  brought 
evidence  and  openly  accused  the  Government  of  having 
organized  this  massacre.  The  Government  merely  said  they 
were  mistaken.1  Nor  has  the  change  of  Government  produced 
any  better  effect.  The  Turkish  Committee  of  Union  and 
Progress  treads  faithfully  in  the  steps  of  the  tryant  it  deposed. 
In  1909,  twenty-five  thousand  Armenians  were  again  massacred 
in  Cilicia.  It  seems  that  under  the  Turk  there  is  no  hope  for 
this  ill-fated  race. 

Armenians  have  a  considerable  literature.  The  language  has 
gone  through  the  inevitable  development,  and  has  formed  several 
new  dialects.  There  are  a  classical,  a  mediaeval  literary,  and 
various  modern  spoken  forms  of  Armenian.  The  liturgical 
language  is  classical,  now  only  partially  understood  by  those  who 
have  not  specially  studied  it.2  Their  literature  begins  with  a 
translation  of  the  Bible  made  by  St.  Mesrob  (p.  409),  and  others 
in  the  4th  century.  They  have  translations  of  Greek,  Latin  and 
Syriac  Fathers,  commentaries  on  the  Bible,  versions  of  philoso- 
phical works  (Plato,  Aristotle,  etc.),  some  poetry  (chiefly  hymns 
in  their  services),  and  especially  history  (Eusebius  translated,  etc.) 
Armenian  literature  consists  to  a  great  extent  of  translations,3 

1  A  most  temperate  account  of  the  massacres  down  to  1907  will  be 
found  in  Eliot  :    op.  cit.  402-413. 

2  I  take  it  the  relation  of  liturgical  Armenian  to  the  modern  colloquial 
language  is  something  like  that  of  classical  to  modern  Arabic,  or  Old 
Slavonic  to  Russian.  The  Armenian  alphabet  was  formed  by  St.  Mesrob 
(pp.  408-409)  from  Greek  letters,  although  it  looks  very  unlike  Greek  to 
us.     This  has  a  cursive  form  for  modern  use. 

3  Of  which  some  are  of  great  value,  since  the  originals  are  lost.  The 
first  part  of  Eusebius'  Chronicle  exists  only  in  Armenian.  In  other  cases 
their  version  preserves  an  important  independent  tradition  of  the  text  (so 
the  Apology  of  Aristides).  The  Armenian  Bible  (from  the  Septuagint)  has 
considerable  critical  value. 


THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH  IN   THE  PAST     395 

and  is  almost  entirely  ecclesiastical.     But  they  have  a  native 
school  of  historians  too. 

For  the  early  history  of  Christianity  in  Armenia  there  are 
two  authentic  sources  of  first  importance — Faustus  and  the 
life  of  St.  Gregory  in  Agathangelos.  Faustus  Byzantinus  is 
a  native  Armenian  of  the  family  Saharunikh.  He  lived  in  the 
4th  century  and  was  in  Holy  Orders.1  He  wrote  in  Greek  a 
Historical  Library,  of  which  Books  iii-vi  contain  the  story  of 
the  conversion  of  Armenia  and  the  history  of  the  Armenian 
Church  down  to  the  division  of  the  country  between  Rome  and 
Persia  in  385  (p.  386)  .2  It  is  not  known  why  he  is  called  "  By- 
zantine "  ;  either  because  he  whites  in  Greek,  or  because  of  a  so- 
journ he  made  at  Constantinople.3  He  writes  in  Greek  because 
there  was  no  possibility  of  a  native  literature  till  Mesrob  invented 
an  Armenian  alphabet  (pp.  408-9) .  Agathangelos  is  the  pseudonym 
of  an  unknown  Armenian  writer  of  the  5th  century.4  He  ficti- 
tiously calls  himself  Agathangelos,5  secretary  of  King  Trdat  II 
(261-314  ?).  His  work,  History  of  the  reign  of  King  Trdat  and  of 
the  preaching  of  St.  Gregory,6  exists  in  two  recensions,  Armenian 
and  Greek,  of  which  the  Armenian  appears  to  be  the  original.7 
The  author  culls  from  many  sources.  Alfred  v.  Gutschmid  in  a 
careful  examination  of  the  text  concludes  that  there  is  here  a 
coherent  nucleus  of  primary  value,  which  he  separates  from  the 
rest  as  the  (original)  Life  of  St.  Gregory.8  Into  and  around  this 
the  compiler  has  woven  many  later  legends.  Lazarus  of  Pharbi, 
at  the  end  of  the  5th  century,  wrote  a  History  of  Armenia9  from 
various  sources,  chiefly  from  Faustus.  The  Vartapet 10  Elisatus 
about  the  same  time  composed  a  history  of  the  war  against  the 

1  He  must  not  be  confused  with  the  schismatically  ordained  Bishop 
Faustus  of  his  time  (see  p.  407). 

2  In  V.  Langlois  :  Collection  des  Historiens  anciens  et  modernes  de 
I'Armenie  (2  vols.,  Paris,  1880),  i.  209-310. 

3  H.  Gelzer  :  "  Die  Anfange  der  armen.  Kirche  "  (Verhdl.  der  K.  Sachs. 
Ges.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Leipzig,  Phil. -hist,  classe,  i.  ii.  1895),  114-116. 

4  He  uses  Mesrob's  version  of  the  Bible  (412)  ;  but  Moses  of  Khoren  and 
Lazar  of  Pharbi  quote  him. 

5  "  Bearer  of  good  tidings,"  an  obviously  assumed  name. 

6  In  Langlois  :    op.  cit.  i.  105-200. 

7  Gutschmid  :    Kleine  Schriften  (Leipzig,  1889),  iii.  339. 

8  Gutschmid  :    Agathangelos  (in  his  Kleine  Schriften,  iii.  339-420). 

9  Langlois  :   op.  cit.  ii.  259-367.  10  For  this  title  see  below,  p.  431. 


396        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

King  of  Persia,  Yazdagird  II  (439-451). *  The  most  famous, 
though  the  least  reliable  Armenian  historian  is  Moses  of  Khoren,2 
called  the  Herodotus  or  the  Eusebius  of  his  country.  He  claims 
to  be  a  disciple  of  Sahak  and  Mesrob,  writing  his  History  of 
Armenia3  soon  after  458.  His  account,  especially  his  chrono- 
logy, dominated  all  later  Armenian  writers  and  all  who  wrote 
about  the  country.4  Gutschmid  has  now  shown  that  his  chrono- 
logy is  impossible,  and  the  historical  value  of  his  work  almost 
nothing.5  He  draws  from  all  manner  of  doubtful  sources,  em- 
bellishes his  story  with  impossible  legends,  and  (especially  as  to 
dates)  is  not  innocent  of  deliberate  fraud.6  Since  Moses'  dates 
are  thoroughly  unsound,  and  no  one  else  gives  any,  the  chronology 
of  early  Armenian  Church  history  is  very  uncertain.7 

The  total  number  of  Armenians  in  the  world  is  estimated  at 
between  three  and  a  half  and  four  millions,  of  whom  about 
1,300,000  are  in  Turkey,  1,200,000  in  Russia,  50,000  in  Persia, 
and  the  rest  dispersed  in  India,  Egypt,  Europe  and  America.8 
The  great  majority  of  these  are  members  of  the  Monophysite 
national  (so-called  Gregorian)  Church  (p.  432). 

2.  The  Conversion  of  Armenia 

The  Apostle  of  Armenia  is  St.  Gregory  the  Illuminator,  in  the 
3rd  and  4th  centuries.  But  there  were  Armenian  Christians 
before  his  time.9     We  shall  not  be  surprised  that  this  Church, 

1  Langlois,  ii.  183-251.  2  Khor'ni  in  Taron. 

3  Langlois,  ii.  53-175  (French)  ;  Armenian  edition,  Venice,  1843. 
Gutschmid  thinks  he  wrote  really  between  634  and  642. 

4  Gibbon  knew  it  in  George  Whiston's  edition  (Armenian  and  Latin, 
London,  1736),  and  uses  Moses'  wrong  chronology  for  Armenia  throughout. 

5  Ueber  die  Glaubwurdigkeit  der  armen.  Gesch.  des  Moses  v.  Khoren 
(Kleine  Schriften,  hi.  282-331)  ;   Moses  von  Chorene  (ib.  iii.  332-338). 

6  Thus,  to  evade  the  seven  years  of  the  reign  of  Manuel  of  Mamikon 
(378-385)  he  deliberately  advances  all  former  dates  by  as  many  years 
(Gutschmid  :   op.  cit.  292). 

7  A  sketch  of  Armenian  literature  (by  N.  Finck)  will  be  found  in  C. 
Brockelmann  :  Gesch.  der  Christl.  Litter  aturen  des  Orients  (Leipzig,  1907), 
PP-  75~13°  ;  also  in  A.  Baumstark  :  Die  Christl.  Liter aturen  des  Orients 
(Sammlung  Goschen),  191 1,  ii.  61-99. 

8  Tournebize  :   op.  cit.  7-8. 

9  Tournebize  (pp.  765-769)  examines  the  original  paganism  of  the  Arme- 
nians.    It  was  a  local  polytheism,  strongly  affected  by  Persian  mythology. 


THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH  IN   THE   PAST     Z97 

too,  claims  to  be  apostolic.  In  the  national  legend  St.  Bartholo- 
mew and  St.  Thaddaeus  come  and  preach  the  gospel  in  Armenia 
soon  after  Whitsunday.  Armenians  have  further  appropriated 
the  story  of  King  Abgar  the  Black  and  the  portrait  of  our  Lord 
(pp.  29-31).  Armenia  to  the  south  touches  the  old  kingdom  of 
Osroene.  They  have  made  Abgar  an  Armenian  king.  In  this 
form  the  legend  is  doubly  untrue.  For  not  only  is  the  whole 
story  apocryphal  (p.  31),  but  in  any  case,  Abgar  would  have 
nothing  to  do  with  Armenia.1  Moreover,  the  Armenians  have  to 
suppose  a  general  apostasy  later,  to  account  for  the  persecution  of 
St.  Gregory.  We  may  then  leave  the  account  of  a  directly  apos- 
tolic foundation  as  merely  one  more  case  of  the  invariable  desire 
of  each  Eastern  Church  to  be  apostolic.  Nor  is  it  compatible  with 
the  legend  of  a  directly  Divine  foundation  later  (p.  409,  n.  3). 
Yet  we  have  evidence  of  Christians,  even  of  a  bishop,  in  Armenia 
before  the  Illuminator.  When  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  (248-265) 
wrote  to  the  Armenians  "  about  penitence,"  they  had  a  bishop 
named  Meruzanes.2  It  seems  that  the  faith  penetrated  into 
Armenia  from  Edessa  during  the  2nd  or  3rd  century.3  This 
earliest  Church  was  destroyed  by  the  Persians  when  they  over- 
ran Armenia  in  the  3rd  century  (p.  386).  Consistently  with  the 
policy  of  the  Sassanids  they  tried  to  force  Mazdaeism  on  all  their 
subjects  (p.  25).  The  mission  of  St.  Gregory  is  part  of  the 
general  revolt  of  Armenia  against  the  Persian  tyrant.  When 
King  Trdat  II  came  back  in  261  and  drove  out  the  Persians  (p.  386), 
at  the  same  time  a  young  Armenian  of  noble  family,4  who  had 

1  The  legend  is  told  in  the  Armenian  version  of  Lerubna  of  Edessa  (in 
Langlois  :  op.  cit.  i.  326-331),  and  by  Moses  of  Khoren  (ib.  ii.  93-100). 
Addai  here  appears  as  St.  Thaddaeus,  and  their  lists  of  Katholikoi  count 
him  the  first.  See  A.  Carriere  :  La  legende  d' Abgar  dans  I'hist.  d'Artn.  de 
Mo'ise  de  Khoren  (Paris,  1895).  Tournebize  discusses  the  story  at  length 
{op.  cit.  402-413). 

2  Eusebius  :  Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  46.  Gelzer  ("  Die  Anfange  der  armen. 
Kirche ")  places  Meruzanes  in  the  isolated  south-eastern  corner  of 
Armenia,  in  Vaspurakan  (p.  172).  3  Tournebize  :   op.  cit.  413-418. 

4  He  is  said  to  have  been  of  Parthian  blood,  son  of  the  very  Anak  who 
murdered  the  last  king,  Khosrov,  in  238  (?).  Gutschmid  doubts  this.  He 
notices  that  in  Agathangelos'  account  Trdat  says  to  Gregory  :  "  You  are 
a  stranger  and  unknown  among  us  "  (Langlois,  i.  126),  and  concludes  that 
he  was  a  foreigner  {Kl.  Schr.  iii.  409) .  Gelzer  thinks  he  was  of  an  Armenian 
pagan  sacerdotal  family  {op.  cit.  146-148). 


398   THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

been  taken  as  an  infant  to  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,1  was  there 
learning  the  faith  and  the  customs  of  Greek-speaking  Christians. 
He  was  born  between  233  and  255, 2  and  was  baptized  at  Caesarea 
as  Gregory.  When  Trdat  (Tiridates)  had  restored  Armenian 
independence,  Gregory  came  back  to  his  own  country  and  obtained 
a  place  at  court.  Full  of  zeal  for  Christianity,  he  began  to  preach 
it.  Trdat  was  still  a  pagan  ;  he  persecuted  Gregory,  tortured 
him,  and  threw  him  into  a  well  or  deep  pit,  where,  the  Armenians 
say,  he  languished  for  fifteen  years,  fed  by  a  pious  widow  named 
Anna.  Meanwhile,  the  Christians,  of  whom  there  seem  to  be 
many,3  are  fiercely  persecuted.  We  hear  of  virgins,  St.  Gaiane  and 
St.  Hripsime,  who  were  martyred  with  thirty-five  companions.4 
But  the  king  is  struck  down  by  some  terrible  disease  ;  he  is  said 
to  have  been  possessed  by  a  devil  and  changed  into  the  likeness 
of  a  wild  boar.  A  dream  reveals  that  only  Gregory  can  heal  him. 
They  send  for  Gregory,  release  him  from  his  pit ;  he  comes,  heals 
and  baptizes  the  king.  Here  occurs  the  legend  of  Etshmiadzin. 
At  the  old  royal  capital  Valarshapat,5  Gregory  had  a  vision.  He 
was  meditating  at  night  when  he  saw  the  heavens  open,  a  blaze 
of  glory  cover  the  earth,  and  our  Lord  descend  bearing  a  golden 
hammer,  with  which  he  struck  the  earth.  Then  a  mighty  golden 
column  arose,  surmounted  by  a  cross.  Around  it  arose  three 
smaller  red  columns.  Above  these  Gregory  saw  a  great  temple 
rise,  with  a  throne  of  gold  bearing  a  cross ;  from  the  temple 
flowed  a  stream  which  became  a  great  lake.  Vast  numbers  of 
black  goats  passed  through  the  water  and  became  white  lambs. 
The  smaller  red  columns  mark  the  places  of  the  martyrdom  of 
St.  Gaiane,  St.  Hripsime  and  their  companions.  The  larger 
golden  column  means  the  Primacy  of  Armenia,  to  be  fixed  here  ; 

1  Great  numbers  of  Armenians  fled  to  Roman  territory  to  escape  the 
Persians. 

2  Tournebize  :    op.  cit.  49. 

3  Presumably  either  Christians  who  had  remained  from  earlier  times, 
in  spite  of  the  Persians,  or  converts  already  made  by  Gregory. 

4  They  keep  their  feast  on  October  5. 

5  The  letter  transcribed  I  in  this  word  became  a  guttural  in  the  later 
language.  So  it  is  often  spelt  "  Vagharshapat  "  (hence  also  Ghevont  for 
Aeco*/,  p.  388,  etc.).  The  West  Armenians  make  surds  (k,  t,  p)  of  the  letters 
pronounced  sonants  (g,  d,  b)  by  East  Armenians  ;  hence  variant  trans- 
literation of  many  words  (vartapet,  vardabed,  etc.). 


THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH  IN    THE   PAST     399 

it  is  greater  and  more  splendid  even  than  the  martyrs'  glory.  So 
Gregory  built  a  church  where  he  had  seen  the  vision,  on  the  model 
of  the  mystic  temple  he  had  seen,  and  the  name  Valarshapat  was 
changed  to  Etshmiadzin,  meaning  "  the  Only-begotten  has  de- 
scended." 1  The  whole  of  this  story  in  particular  can  be  proved 
to  be  apocryphal.  It  is  a  late  invention,  after  the  schism  with 
Caesarea  (p.  409),  to  glorify  the  office  of  Katholikos,  to  represent 
the  national  Church  as  founded  by  an  independent  commission 
of  our  Lord,  and  to  exalt  the  later  centre  Etshmiadzin.2  We 
shall  see  that  in  the  first  period  the  centre  of  Armenian  Christen- 
dom was  not  there  but  at  Ashtishat  (p.  403) . 

After  this  Gregory  went  back  to  Caesarea  with  a  splendid  retinue, 
and  Leontius,  the  Metropolitan  of  Caesarea,  ordained  him 
bishop  for  Armenia  (302  ?).  He  was  married  and  had  two  sons, 
Vrthanes  (Bardanes)  and  Aris takes  or  Rhes takes.3  When  he 
came  back  as  bishop  the  Armenian  writers  of  his  life  tell  us 
more  wonders.  He  travels  about  the  country  with  the  king  and 
his  army,  putting  down  heathenry.  The  false  gods  fight  against 
this  army  in  person,  but  are  defeated  by  Trdat's  valour  and 
Gregory's  prayers.  He  is  said  to  have  baptized  four  million 
persons  in  seven  days  ;  to  have  ordained  twelve  bishops,  all  sons 
of  heathen  priests,  whom  he  sent  to  preach  the  gospel  throughout 
Armenia ;  to  have  at  last  ruled  a  Church  of  four  hundred 
bishops  and  priests  too  numerous  to  count.  He  died,  perhaps 
between  315  and  326/  and  was  buried  at  Thortan  on  the 
Euphrates,  where  later  a  monastery  and  church  were  built. 
The  Armenian  lives  of  the  saint  abound  in  these  and  greater 
marvels.  When  he  came  out  of  the  pit  he  fasted,  eating  no 
food  for  seventy  days.  When  he  comes  before  the  king  a  long 
speech  is  put  into  his  mouth,  which  takes  up  half  his  life  in 
Agathangelos.5      It    is    simply    a    compendium    of    what    the 

1  Agathangelos,  102  (Langlois,  i.  156-160). 

2  See  Gelzer  :  op.  cit.  126-131  ;  Gutschmid  :  Kl.  Schr.  hi.  382,  395. 
The  vision  of  St.  Gregory  is  not  part  of  the  original  Life  in  Agathangelos. 

3  There  is  no  difficulty  about  a  married  bishop  in  the  3rd  and  4th  cen- 
turies. The  father  of  St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzos  (330-390)  was  a  bishop 
and  married.     Nearly  all  the  early  Armenian  bishops  were  married  (p.  402). 

4  Tournebize  :    op.  cit.  59. 

5  Omitted  in  Langlois  (i.  153). 


4oo        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Armenians  believed  in  the  5th  century,  when  evidently  it  was 
composed.  It  gives  an  account  of  Bible  history,  refutes 
Arianism,  Nestorianism  and  all  other  heresies  down  to  that 
time.  This  supposed  "  Confession  of  St.  Gregory  "  became  a 
kind  of  creed  to  Armenians.  In  spite  of  all  the  wonders,1  St. 
Gregory's  education  and  ordination  at  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia, 
the  conversion  of  the  king  and  evangelization  of  Armenia  by 
him  in  the  early  4th  century  are  undoubtedly  historical. 
Armenians  remember  him  with  good  reason  as  their  apostle 
and  great  national  saint.  They  call  him  rightly  St.  Gregory  the 
Illuminator  (Srbotz  Grigor  Lusavoritsh).2 


3.  Catholic  Armenia 

Putting  aside  the  later  traditions  (Moses  of  Khoren),  which 
project  into  the  first  period  of  Armenian  Church  history  the 
customs  of  their  own  time,  we  have  a  curious  picture  of  the  first 
Christian  century.  The  dates  of  the  conversion  usually  given 
are  :  King  Trdat  II,  259  or  276  to  314.  St.  Gregory  and  he  are 
said  to  be  born  in  the  same  year,  237.  Trdat's  conversion  is  put 
at  about  290-295,  Gregory's  ordination  at  302  and  his  death  at 
325.  But  this  depends  on  Moses  of  Khoren's  unreliable  chron- 
ology.3 

With  the  conversion  of  King  Trdat,4  Christianity  became  the 

1  In  the  article  :  "  Gregory  the  Illuminator  "  in  the  Catholic  Encyclopedia, 
I  have  tried  to  distinguish  the  historical  and  the  legendary  elements  of  his 
life.     See  also  further  bibliography  there. 

2  They  keep  feasts  of  his  birth  (August  5),  sufferings  (February  4),  going 
into  the  pit  (February  28),  coming  out  of  the  pit  (October  19),  and 
translation  of  his  relics  (September  30).  The  Byzantine  Church  keeps  his 
feast  (Tpr\y6pios  6  <pooar^p)  on  September  30,  as  do  the  Jacobites.  He  occurs 
in  the  Roman  martyrology  on  September  30  as  :  "  Episcopus  magna? 
Armenia?."  Pope  Gregory  XVI  put  a  feast  among  those  "  pro  aliquibus 
locis  "  on  October  1  for  :  "  S.  Gregorius,  patriarcha  Armenia?,  martyr, 
vulgo  Illuminator."  He  was  neither  a  patriarch  nor  a  martyr.  But  it 
may  be  wished  that  the  feast  of  the  apostle  of  a  great  Christian  nation  be 
kept  by  the  whole  Roman  rite. 

3  See  the  discussion  in  Tournebize  :  op.  cit.  424-444.  We  shall  see  that 
all  these  dates  (down  to  Shahak  I)  are  unreliable  (p.  402,  n.  1).  They  are 
often  not  even  consistent  with  one  another. 

4  The  fact  of  Trdat  II's  conversion  is  undoubtedly  historical. 


THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH  IN   THE  PAST     401 

religion  of  the  state,  the  court,  and  aristocracy.  Armenians  have 
a  right  to  their  boast  that  their  nation  was  the  first  to  embrace 
Christianity  officially  ;  it  did  so  a  score  of  years  or  so  before  the 
Roman  Empire.  But  paganism  lingered  for  some  time  among 
the  people,  especially  in  the  remote  parts  of  the  country.  As  late 
as  the  time  of  Vrthanes,  the  third  primate,  even  at  Ashtishat,  the 
Christian  centre  of  Armenia,  there  was  an  insurrection  of  pagan 
priests  and  their  followers,  who  tried  to  kill  the  bishop.1  We 
hear  of  pagan  funeral  rites  in  378.2  The  pagan  priesthood  formed 
a  rich  and  powerful  military  class  ;  naturally,  they  opposed  the 
new  religion  in  every  way.  It  was,  no  doubt,  in  order  to  break 
down  this  opposition  that  St.  Gregory  constantly  chose  pagan 
priests,  or  their  sons,  to  be  Christian  priests  or  bishops.  We  do 
not  know  how  many  suffragans  Gregory  ordained.  The  later 
legendary  tradition  makes  him  erect  an  impossible  number  of  sees, 
as  many  as  four  hundred.  But  it  seems  clear  that  he  had 
suffragans,  and  left  a  large,  well-organized  Church  at  his  death, 
though  it  was  not  yet  the  religion  of  all  Armenians.  Towards 
the  end  of  his  life  he  ordained  his  second  son,  Aristakes,  to 
succeed  him,  and  then  retired  to  a  hermitage.3  There  is  some 
mystery  as  to  wlty  the  elder  son  did  not  succeed  first.4  Aristakes 
was  present  at  the  Council  of  Nicaea  in  325. 5  Against  the 
custom  of  that  time  in  the  Armenian  Church,  he  did  not  marry 
and  had  no  son.  They  had  already  evolved  the  idea  of  a 
hereditary  succession  in  the  Illuminator's  family.  So  they  fell 
back  on  the  elder  brother,  Vrthanes,  and  made  him  Katholikos. 
Vrthanes  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Yusik.6  Yusik's  son  is  said  to 
have  refused  ordination,  so  he  was  succeeded  by  a  cousin,  Pharen 
or  Pharnerseh ; 7  then  came  Shahak  ;  the  primacy  came  back  to 

1  Faustus,  iii.  3  (Langlois,  i.  p.  211).  2  Faustus,  v.  36  (ib.  298). 

3  St.  Gregory  died  and  was  buried  at  Thortan. 

4  Gelzer  thinks  it  is  because  the  elder  son  "  had  at  first  no  inclination 
for  the  priesthood  "  ("  Anfange  der  arm.  Kirche,"  144). 

5  Agathangelos,  127  (Langlois,  i.  190)  ;  in  the  Latin  list  in  Mansi  (ii.  699) 
occurs  :    "  Armenise  maioris  Aristaces." 

6  For  Vrthanes'  marriage  and  two  sons  see  Faustus,  iii.  v.  (ed.  cit.  212). 

7  Yusik's  sons  "trampled  under  foot  the  spiritual  honour";  so  the 
people  determined  "  to  find  someone  of  the  house  of  Gregory  who  could 
fill  the  throne  of  the  Patriarchs  "  (Faustus,  iii.  15  ;  ed.  cit.  i.  p.  227).  The 
hereditary  idea  was  clearly  accepted. 

26 


402        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

the  direct  line  in  Nerses,  Yusik's  grandson,  who  died  before 
374.1     Nerses  marks  an  epoch. 

In  this  early  Armenian  Church  we  notice  first  a  strong  Jewish 
tendency.  As  the  Kings  of  Abyssinia  claimed  descent  from 
Solomon,  so  did  those  of  Armenia  (the  Arsacids)  from  Abraham. 
In  their  history  occur  deliberate  reproductions  of  Old  Testament 
scenes.2  There  are  traces  of  royal  polygamy  after  Christianity.3 
The  chief  eunuch  of  the  king's  harem  was  a  great  nobleman.4 
Gelzer  says  that  the  hereditary  Primates  with  their  sacerdotal 
family  were  more  like  the  old  Jewish  High  Priests  than  Christian 
bishops.5  Not  only  the  Primates,  other  bishops,  too,  were 
married  and  had  families,  in  which  priestly  rank  was  hereditary  6 
(though,  of  course,  all  were  ordained).  The  sons  of  bishops 
often  led  disedifying  lives,  hunting  and  fighting  like  young 
noblemen,  though  they  were  ordained  deacons.  There  was  a 
great  rival  family  to  that  of  St.  Gregory,  namely,  the  house  of 
Albianos.  Albianos  was  the  son  of  a  pagan  priest,  converted  and 
ordained  bishop  by  the  Illuminator.7  His  descendants  appear 
constantly  as  rivals  who,  for  a  time,  obtain  the  primacy.  Shahak, 
who  succeeded  Pharen,  was  the  first  Katholikos  of  Albianos' 
house.8 

The  Katholikos  was  a  very  great  lord.  He  was  very  rich,  had 
vast  possessions  consisting  of  fifteen  districts,9  rode  in  a  royal 
chariot,  was  attended  by  twelve  bishops,  and  went  up  to  Csesarea 
in  royal  state,  accompanied  by  princes,  to  be  ordained.10 

The  early  Primates  of  Armenia  did  not  take  their  title  from  any 

1  Malachy  Ormanian  (L'£glise  armenienne,  Paris,  1910)  gives  these 
dates  :  St.  Gregory  1325,  Aristakes  325-333,  Vrthanes  333-341,  Yusik 
341-347,  Pharen  348-352,  Shahak  352,  Nerses  353~375  (PP-  M~*5  '>  cf-  J72)- 
Tchamitch  (in  Langlois,  ii.  387)  makes  them  all  succeed  earlier.  Faustus 
and  Moses  of  Khoren  disagree  (see  the  lists  compared  in  Gelzer  :  op.  cit. 
121).  There  is  no  certainty  in  these  early  dates.  Nerses  died  before  374, 
because  King  Pap  murdered  him,  and  Pap  himself  died  in  374. 

2  Faustus,  iii.  11  (Langlois,  i.  p.  221)  ;   v.  4  (ib.  p.  282). 

3  Arshak  III  (341-370  ?)  had  two  wives,  Pharandzem  and  Olympia 
(Faustus,  iv.  15  ;   ed.  cit.  i.  p.  253). 

4  Faustus,  iv.  14  (i.  249-250).  5  Gelzer  :   op.  cit.  140. 

6  Faustus,  iv.  12  (i.  248)  ;   vii.  8  (i.  308). 

7  Agathangelos,  120  (Langlois,  i.  181)  ;   Faustus,  iii.  4  {ib.  p.  212). 

8  Faustus,  iii.  17  (i.  228).  9  Faustus,  iv.  14  (i.  250). 
10  Faustus,  iii.  16  (i.  227). 


THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH  IN   THE   PAST     403 

city.  As  often  happens  in  the  case  of  missionary  Churches,  they 
were  called  simply  Archbishop  or  Katholikos  of  the  Armenians. 
The  title  "  Patriarch  "  does  not  occur  till  after  the  breach  with 
Caesarea  (p.  408),  though  later  writers  sometimes  project  it  back 
to  the  earlier  period.1  Nor  have  they  ever  used  a  special  local 
title.  This  fact  explains  to  a  great  extent  the  frequent  later 
disputed  successions.  If  the  primacy  were  attached  to  a  parti- 
cular see,  the  man  who  (whether  de  iure  or  de  facto)  held  that  see 
would  have  an  obvious  claim  to  it.  But  so  vague  a  title  as 
Katholikos  of  Armenia  would  be,  and  was,  claimed  by  various 
bishops  at  the  same  time,  each  ruling  over  a  political  fraction 
which  was  called  Armenia.  So,  with  the  breaking  up  of  the  old 
kingdom,  each  rival  king  or  prince  who  called  himself  sovereign 
of  Armenia  had  at  his  court  a  Katholikos,  whose  claim  was  as 
good  as  that  of  the  temporal  sovereign. 

However,  till  the  5th  century,  whereas  the  king  resided  at 
Valarshapat,  the  Primate  was  not  there,  but  far  away,  a\  Ashtishat 
in  Tar  on,  on  the  Euphrates,  in  the  south  of  Armenia.  Ashtishat, 
not  Etshmiadzin,  was  the  first  metropolis  of  the  Armenian  Church. 
All  early  accounts  show  this.  Valarshapat  (the  later  Etshmiadzin) , 
the  place  of  martyrdom  of  the  Saints  Gaiane,  Hripsime  and  their 
companions,  has  at  first  no  ecclesiastical  importance  at  all. 
Agathangelos  tells  us  that  at  Ashtishat,  on  the  site  of  temples  of 
pagan  gods,  St.  Gregory  erected  an  altar  to  Christ.  "  It  is  here 
that  churches  and  altars  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity  and 
baptismal  fonts  were  first  set  up."  2  Faustus  calls  Ashtishat 
"  the  mother,  the  first  and  greatest  of  all  the  churches  of  Armenia, 
the  chief  and  most  honoured  see.  For  here  for  the  first  time  a 
holy  church  was  built  and  an  altar  set  up  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."3 
The  sons  of  Yusik  lead  a  disorderly  life  "  in  the  episcopal  palace  " 
at  Ashtishat,4  the  first  synods  are  held  there,5  when  Hair,  the 
chief  eunuch,  wants  to  receive  the  blessing  of  Nerses,  he  goes 
to  find  him  at  Ashtishat.6  In  short,  a  multitude  of  evidences 
leaves  no  doubt  that  Ashtishat  was  the  original  metropolis. 

1  Gutschmid  :    Kl.  Schr.  iii.  353. 

2  Agathangelos,  114-115  (Langlois,  i.  173-176). 

3  Faustus,  iii.  14  (Langlois,  i.  p.  224)  ;   cf.  iii.  3  (ib.  i.  211). 

4  Faustus,  iii.  19  (ed.  cit.  i.  p.  229). 

5  Faustus,  iv.  4  (ib.  i.  239).  6  Faustus,  iv.  14  (ib.  i.  250). 


404   THE  LESSER   EASTERN  CHURCHES 

We  come  to  the  question  of  the  place  of  the  Armenian  Church 
in  the  body  of  Christendom.  This  is  perfectly  simple,  and  per- 
fectly regular.  It  was  a  missionary  Church  dependent  on  Caesarea, 
subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  Caesarea,  just  as  the  Persian  Church 
was  on  Edessa,  and  Ethiopia  on  Alexandria.  Modern  Armenian 
writers,  supposing  the  legend  of  Etshmiadzin,  claim  that  their 
Church  was  autocephalous,  independent  of  any  foreign  authority 
from  the  beginning.1  It  was  for  just  such  a  purpose  that  this 
legend  was  invented,  after  the  Armenians  had  broken  with  their 
mother-Church.  There  is  no  possibility  of  such  a  position,  and 
none  for  so  monstrous  a  person  (at  that  time)  asa"  Patriarch  " 
of  Armenia.  Moreover,  we  have  the  clearest  direct  evidence 
of  Armenian  dependence  on  Caesarea. 

Till  the  Council  of  Ephesus  (431)  made  Cyprus  extra-patriarchal, 
on  the  strength  of  its  alleged  apostolic  foundation,2  there  was  no 
such  thing  as  an  autocephalous  national  Church.  There  were 
three,  and  only  three,  Patriarchs  in  Christendom — the  Bishops  of 
Rome,  Alexandria,  Antioch  ;  all  Christians  were  ultimately  sub- 
ject to  one  of  these,  and  of  them  the  Roman  Patriarch  was  chief 
of  his  brothers.3  Missionary  Churches  obeyed  the  bishop  of  the 
mother-Church.  We  have  seen  this  in  the  case  of  Persia  (pp.  42, 
49)  and  Abyssinia  (pp.  296,  299).  It  is  no  less  clear  in  the  case 
of  Armenia.  Here  the  mother-Church  was  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia. 
St.  Gregory  the  Illuminator  came  from  Caesarea  ;  he  went  back 
there  to  be  ordained.  He  ordained  his  son  Aristakes  himself 
(p.  401)  ;  we  do  not  know  who  ordained  Vrthanes.  But  then  till 
Nerses  all  the  Armenian  Primates  went  up  to  Caesarea,  with  a 
great  retinue,  to  be  ordained.  Agathangelos  makes  Leontius 
claim  this  as  a  right  for  all  time.4  We  have  seen  that  in  the  East 
the  right  of  ordination  always  implies  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction 
(PP-  37 >  300>  etc) ;  the  sign  of  an  autocephalous  Metropolitan  is 
that  he  is  ordained  by  his  own  suffragans,  as  was  the  Archbishop 
of  Cyprus  after  Ephesus.5  So,  consistently,  after  their  schism 
with  Caesarea  the  Armenian  Primates  began  to  be  ordained  by 

1  E.g.  Ormanian  :   L'ltglise  armenienne,  11-14. 

2  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  47-50.  3  lb.  8-9. 

4  Gutschmid,  op.  cit.  iii.  392  ;  Gelzer,  op.  cit.  160  ;  Tournebize,  op.  cit. 
56  (not  in  Langlois) . 

5  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  48. 


THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH  IN   THE  PAST     405 

their  suffragans.  All  the  more  significant  are  their  former 
journeys  to  Caesarea.  Gelasius  of  Cyzicus  in  his  history  of  the 
Council  of  Nicaea  counts  Armenia  "  both  great  and  little  "  as  a 
province  of  Caesarea.1 

The  title  of  the  Armenian  Primate  proves  his  dependence.  He 
was  not  a  Patriarch  before  the  schism.  Leontius  sometimes  uses 
this  name  loosely,  as  do  many  writers.2  But  the  regular,  almost 
invariable  title  is  "  Katholikos."  3  It  appears  that  this  name 
was  first  used  for  the  Armenian  Primate  ;  from  him  it  was 
borrowed  later  by  the  Primate  of  Persia  (p.  49)  and  others.  In 
civil  language  the  Katholikos  was  the  emperor's  minister  of 
finance.4  In  Christian  ecclesiastical  use  it  had  a  definite  mean- 
ing. Taken  because  of  its  obvious  suggestion  (Catholic),  it  meant 
always  the  Primate  of  a  great  Church,  more  than  a  Metropolitan, 
but  one  who  is  subject  to  a  greater  bishop.  "  Exarch  "  is  rather 
a  lesser  kind  of  Patriarch,  independent  of  anyone,  save,  of  course 
always,  of  the  central  authority  of  Rome  over  the  whole  Church.5 
Katholikos  implies  dependence  ;  a  Katholikos  (like  the  Syrian 
Mafrian)  is  the  vicar  of  a  greater  bishop.  So  Faustus  calls  the 
Primates  of  Iberia  and  Albania  "  Katholikoi,"  because  they  are 
under  Armenia  ; 6  he  calls  the  Metropolitan  of  Caesarea  Katho- 
likos, because  he  is  subject  to  the  Patriarch  of  Antioch.7  The 
modern  Armenians  have  so  forgotten  the  meaning  of  the  word 
that,  having  now  many  "  Patriarchs,"  they  use  "  Katholikos  " 
as  meaning  "  Chief  Patriarch  "  (p.  430).  Lastly,  the  story  of 
their  schism  from  Caesarea,  and  St.  Basil's  protest  against  it, 
show  that  then  their  claim  to  independence  was  new  (p.  407). 

In  this  first  period,  then,  the  Armenian  Church  was  part  of  the 
Catholic  Church.     It  took  a  normal  place,  as  an  outlying  mission 

1  Mansi,  ii.  881.  In  spite  of  this  explicit  statement,  Ormanian  says  that 
writers  who  count  Armenia  under  Caesarea  mean  only  Armenia  Minor 
{op.  cit.  13).  Then  he  talks  about  :  "  l'histoire  consciencieusement  etudiee  " 
(ib.). 

2  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  8,  n.  2. 

3  "  Kathoghikos  "  in  the  later  Western  pronunciation. 

4  So  Eusebius  :  Hist.  Eccl.  vii.  105.  5  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  8,  21. 

6  Faustus,  hi.  6  (Langlois,  i.  214). 

7  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  is  the  "  Katholikos  of  Katholikoi,"  having  under 
him^those  of  Armenia,  Iberia,  etc.,  himself  under  Antioch.  Faustus,  iv.  4 
(ed/cit.  i.  p.  238). 


4o6        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

of  Caesarea,  in  the  great  united  body  of  which  the  chiefs  were 
the  three  Patriarchs,  and  the  Roman  Patriarch  head  of  the  chiefs. 
The  Armenians  were  Catholic  in  faith  too,  in  spite  of  their  here- 
ditary episcopates  and  other  abnormal  customs.  They  accepted, 
and  still  accept,  the  first  three  General  Councils.1  In  spite  of  her 
remote,  almost  isolated  position,  she  was  conscious  of  the  Primacy 
of  St.  Peter.  Even  after  her  schism,  the  Katholikos  Hovhannes 
(John)  I  (478-490)  refers  "  those  who  have  made  shipwreck  of 
the  faith  "  to  "  the  door-keeper  and  key-bearer  of  heaven,  Peter." 2 
Like  all  Eastern  Churches  the  Armenians  still  consider  the  Pope 
to  be  the  chief  bishop  of  Christendom  (p.  427) . 


4.  The  Breach  with  Caesarea 

Before  the  rise  of  the  heresy  which  was  to  engulf  her,  the 
Armenian  Church  endangered  her  position  by  breaking  the  bond 
which  held  her  in  a  canonical  position,  joined  in  the  orderly 
scheme  of  the  great  united  Church.3  The  Armenian  breach  with 
Caesarea  is  a  disgraceful  example  of  injustice  and  of  the  inter- 
ference of  a  civil  tyrant  in  Church  matters.  It  begins  by  a  schism 
in  Armenia  against  the  lawful  Katholikos. 

Although  after  Trdat  II  the  Armenian  kings  were  Christians, 
it  was  not  long  before  quarrels  began  between  the  Church  and  the 
state.  Yusik,  the  fourth  Katholikos,  reproached  King  Tiran  II 
(325-341  ?)  for  various  immoralities,  and  was  martyred  by  his 
order.4  Yusik's  grandson  Nerses  was  a  great  reformer.  He 
had  been  educated  at  Caesarea,  and  began  the  abolition  of  Ar- 
menian irregularities   and  the  principle  of  conforming  to  the 

1  Ormanian,  op.  cit.  21.  For  acceptance  of  Ephesus  see  Tournebize, 
op.  cit.  86-87,  506.  The  Armenians,  later  Monophysites,  were  always 
strongly  anti-Nestorian.  They  held  a  synod  against  Theodore  of  Mop- 
suestia  in  435. 

2  Tournebize  :  Hist,  politique  et  religieuse  de  I'Armenie  (Paris,  1900), 
87-88.  There  are  many  texts  about  the  Papacy  by  early  Armenian  writers. 
These  will  be  considered  in  the  next  volume. 

3  The  parallel  between  all  this  story  and  that  of  the  Persian  Church  is 
obvious.  Persia  went  into  schism  before  she  became  heretical.  In  Persia, 
too,  the  originally  dependent  Katholikos  made  himself  an  independent 
Patriarch  (p.  51). 

4  Faustus,  iii.  12  (ed.  cit.  i.  222-223). 


THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH  IN   THE  PAST     407 

rules  of  the  Catholic  Church  (more  immediately  to  Byzantine 
rules),  which  reform  was  later  carried  out  completely  by  Sahak 
I  (p.  408).     He  held  a  great  reforming  synod  at  Ashtishat  (in 
365  P).1    The  king,  Arshak  III  (341-367  ?),  murdered  one  of  his 
wives,  Olympia,  and  led  a  life  of  gross  immorality.     So  Nerses 
reproached  him  and  refused  to  attend  his  court.2    Arshak  then 
set  up  the  first  schismatical  anti-Katholikos,  a  certain  Tshunak.3 
But  Arshak's  defeat  and  death  in  the  Persian  war  (367)  soon 
made  an   end  of  this  schism.     Tshunak  disappears  with  his 
master.     Tiran's  son   Pap,  who  succeeded  him,  was   a  worse 
monster  than  his  father.     His  whole  life  is  a  series  of  abomin- 
able crimes  and  unspeakable  immorality.     Faustus  says  he  was 
possessed  by  Devs.4     It  was  this  atrocious  person  who  made 
the  Armenian  Church  independent.     He  soon  fell  foul  of  the 
holy  Katholikos,  Nerses,  and  poisoned  him.5    Then  Pap  began 
undoing  Nerses'  reform  ;    and  the  dying  embers  of  paganism  re- 
vived.    The  king  himself  appointed  a  new  Katholikos,  Yusik  II. 
Caring  nothing  for  church  law,  he  had  him  ordained  at  home 
without  regard  for  the  rights  of  Csesarea.     Yusik  was  of  the  rival 
house   of   Albianos.     St.    Basil   (f  379)*    tnen    Metropolitan   of 
Caesarea,  was  exceedingly  indignant  at  this  act,  held  a  synod 
which  denounced  it,  and  wrote  to  this  effect  to  the  Armenian 
Church  and  to  Pap.6     But  the  breach  was  never  healed.     From 
this  time  the  Armenian  Katholikos  never  again  went  to  Caesarea 
to  be  ordained.     Pap  tried  to  compromise  with  Caesarea,  and 
sent  a  certain  Faustus  7  there  to  be  ordained.     But  Basil,  finding 
that   this   man   held  with   Pap  and  the  schismatical    party,8 
would  neither  ordain  him  nor  give  him  letters  for  any  Cappa- 
docian  bishop.     Faustus  then  went  off  to  Anthimos  of  Tyana, 
Basil's  personal  enemy,  and  was  ordained  by  him.     Basil  ex- 

1  Faustus,  iv.  4  (ed.  cit.  i.  239). 

2  Faustus,  iv.  15  (i.  p.  252). 

3  No  Armenian  bishops  would  ordain  the  intruder.  He  was  ordained 
by  two  fugitive  bishops  without  dioceses  (Gelzer  :  op.  cit.  155).  This  is 
the  first  attempt  to  set  up  a  Katholikos  independently  of  Caesarea. 

4  iv.  44  (i.  p.  265).  5  Faustus,  v.  25  (i.  290-291). 

6  lb.  v.  29  (i.  p.  293). 

7  Not  to  be  confused  with  the  historian  Faustus  Byzantinus. 

8  It  appears  that  there  was  already  a  rightful  bishop  in  the  see  to  which 
the  king  wanted  to  intrude  Faustus, 


408        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

presses  himself  strongly  on  the  subject.1    There  follow  three 
Primates  of  the  house  of  Albianos,  which  held  with  the  Court 
party.     Meanwhile  at  least  a  portion  of  the  people,  more  Catholic 
n  mind,  remain  loyal  to  the  rights  of  Caesarea  and  to  the  house 
of  St.  Gregory.     As  these  would  have  no  communion  with  Pap's 
primates,  they  sent  their  bishops  for  ordination  to  Caesarea.2     So 
there  was  internal  schism  in  the  land.     Nerses'  son,  St.  Sahak 
(Isaac)  I  (387-442  ?)  made  an  end  of  this  ;  although,  unhappily, 
he  confirmed  the  breach  with  Caesarea.     The  line  of  Arsacid 
kings  came  to  an  end  with  Manuel  of  Mamikon  (378-385),  when 
Theodosius   divided   the   kingdom   with   Persia    (p.   386).     The 
Primacy  came  back  to  St.  Gregory's  house  in  Sahak.     He  was 
a  great  reformer,   established  strict  discipline  throughout  the 
Armenian  Church,  put  an  end  to  episcopal  marriages,  set  up 
monasteries,  hospitals,  etc.,  and  founded  a  national  literature. 
But  he  accepted  and  confirmed  the  practice  of  ordaining  the 
Katholikos  in  Armenia,  and  so  finally  sealed  the  breach  with  the 
mother-Church.     From  now  on  Faustus  and  other  writers  con- 
sistently use  the  title  Patriarch  for  the  national  Primate.3     Other- 
wise, Sahak's  reform  meant  the  acceptance  of  strict  canon  law 
on  Byzantine  lines.     Monks  now  begin  to  abound,  and  curious 
attempts  are  made  to  explain  away  the  marriage  of  earlier  bishops.4 
Especially  important  is  the  work  of  Sahak's  friend  and  ally,  the 
bishop  St.  Mesrob.5     Hitherto  there  had  been  no  letters  in  which 
to  write  Armenian,  so  no  Armenian  literature.     All  their  culture 
had  been  Greek  from  the  West,  or  Syrian  from  the  South.     Both 
influences  had  been  strong,  that  of  Greece  stronger,  as  the  Ar- 
menian liturgy  and  later  literature  shows.     Mesrob  on  the  basis 

1  Ep.  120  (P.G.  xxxii.  540)  ;  Ep.  121  (ib.  541)  ;  Ep.  122  (ib.  541).  The 
ira-nas  with  whom  Faustus  held,  who  has  puzzled  St.  Basil's  editors  (see 
Migne,  loc.  cit.  note),  is  King  Pap  of  Armenia. 

2  This  seems  to  me  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  difficult  passage  in  Faustus,  v. , 
end  of  chap.  29  (Langlois,  i.  293-294). 

3  Gelzer:  op.  cit.  161. 

4  Ib.  142.  For  an  early  example  of  apparent  scandal  at  bishops'  mar- 
riages see  Faustus,  hi.  5  (ed.  cit.  i.  213). 

5  He  is  called  Mesrob  Mashtotz.  There  seems  to  be  some  doubt  as  to 
whether  "  Mashtotz  "  be  a  name  or  a  title.  See  Kevork  Arslan  :  Etudes 
historiques  sur  le  peuple  armenien  (Paris,  1909),  p.  212,  n.  1.  It  looks 
rather  like  an  attempt  at  a  Syriac  participle. 


THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH  IN   THE  PAST    409 

of  the  Greek  alphabet  composed  Armenian  letters.1  Sahak  and 
Mesrob,  aided  by  a  school  of  interpreters,  then  translated  the 
Bible  into  Armenian  and  founded  a  literature  which  was  to  have 
a  great  future.  The  Armenian  liturgy  was  formed  (from  the 
Byzantine  rite,  see  p.  441)  about  this  time.2  So,  just  when 
Persia  overran  nearly  all  the  country,  Sahak  and  Mesrob  sup- 
plied Armenians  with  a  basis  of  national  existence,  a  literary 
language  and  national  rites.  Mesrob's  alphabet  may  stand  as 
a  symbol  of  the  civilization  and  literature  it  expressed.  It  is 
not  original.  It  is  mostly  Greek  with  a  less  prevailing  Syriac 
influence.     Just  so  is  all  Armenian  culture. 

After  Nerses,  in  the  5th  century,  when  Armenia  was  divided 
between  the  Roman  Empire  and  Persia  (p.  386),  for  a  time  there 
were  rival  Patriarchs,  one  in  each  part.  Such  a  situation  has 
been  repeated  constantly.  Armenian  Church  history  is  full  of 
rival  Patriarchs,  domestic  schisms  and  disputed  successions — 
faithful  echo  of  the  distracted  state  of  the  nation.  Under  the 
Persians  were  a  number  of  martyrs,  whose  memory  is  kept  by 
their  Church. 

Before  we  end  this  paragraph  we  may  notice  the  further 
vicissitudes  of  the  seat  of  the  Katholikos-Patriarch.  We  have 
seen  that  in  the  first  period  he  sat  at  Ashtishat  in  Taron  (p.  403). 
After  the  breach  with  Caesarea  for  a  time  they  seem  to  have 
lived  at  the  king's  court  at  Valarshapat  under  Mount  Ararat. 
It  was  then  that  the  legend  of  this  place  arose.  Valarshapat 
became  Etshmiadzin,  the  scene  of  our  Lord's  direct  commission 
to  St.  Gregory.  So  two  purposes  were  served,  the  exaltation  of 
that  place  and  the  idea  of  an  independent  Church  founded,  not 
from  Caesarea,  but  directly  by  Christ  in  Armenia  (p.  399)  .3     But 

1  There  are  thirty-eight  letters.  Rutin,  a  Greek  calligraphist,  helped 
Mesrob  to  form  them.  Armenians  praise  them  as  singularly  fit  to  express 
the  sounds  of  their  language.  A  foreigner  may  perhaps  venture  to  say 
that  many  of  them  are  too  much  like  others  to  make  Armenian  easy  to 
read.  They  are  considerably  changed  from  the  Greek  originals.  Except 
O,  P,  <t>,  there  is  hardly  one  a  Greek  would  recognize.  L  has  become  our 
Latin  L. 

2  Hitherto  Armenians  had  used  the  Byzantine  rite  in  Greek,  and  (in  the 
south)  that  of  Jerusalem  or  Antioch  in  Syriac. 

3  This  is  really  the  same  idea  as  that  of  the  other  legend  of  foundation 
by  the  Apostles  St.  Thaddaeus  and  St.  Bartholomew.     They  did  not  appre- 


410        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

the  Patriarchs  did  not  remain  at  Etshmiadzin.  From  the  5th 
to  the  7th  centuries  they  are  with  the  kings  1  at  Duin  or  Tovin, 
not  far  off  (south-east  of  Erivan).  A  number  of  synods  were 
held  here.  In  the  8th  century  Ani  (south  of  Kars)  became  the 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  centre  of  Armenia.  But  the  Patriarch 
still  wandered  about,  generally  with  the  king  or  prince,  accord- 
ing to  the  fortune  of  war.  In  the  nth  century  Cilician  Armenia 
appears  with  its  king  and  Patriarch  at  Sis  (pp.  389,  415).  From 
the  15th  century  till  now  Etshmiadzin  has  again  been  the  usual 
residence  of  the  Katholikos  (pp.  417,  427). 

At  what  moment  shall  we  say  that  the  Armenian  Church  went 
into  schism  ?  Her  breach  with  Caesarea  was  a  violation  of  Church 
law,  in  itself  a  schismatical  act.  But  it  did  not  necessarily  lead 
at  once  to  schism.  Schism  is  a  breach  of  communion  with  the 
one  Church  of  Christ.  If,  then,  Caesarea,  in  spite  of  the  injury 
done  to  her,  remained  in  communion  with  the  Armenians,  these 
must  not  yet  be  counted  a  schismatical  sect.2  It  seems  that  till 
Armenia  turned  Monophysite  this  is  what  happened.  The  Metro- 
politan of  Caesarea  had  the  right  to  excommunicate  his  rebellious 
children,  but  I  do  not  find  that  he  did  so.  He  seems  to  have 
tolerated  what  he  could  not  prevent,  to  have  suffered  the  Arme- 
nians to  ordain  their  own  Primate  without  further  protest,  after 
that  of  St.  Basil  (p.  407).  So  we  have  at  first  autonomy3  with- 
out schism.  Caesarea  by  an  act  of  undeserved  grace  allowed  her 
communion  to  Armenia,  and  the  rest  of  Christendom  did  not 
interfere   between   the  mother   and   the   disobedient   daughter. 

ciate  that  the  story  of  an  earlier  apostolic  foundation  makes  the  legend  of 
our  Lord's  commission  to  St.  Gregory  superfluous.  Nor  had  they  ever 
quite  the  courage  to  urge  St.  Gregory's  story  to  its  natural  conclusion.  One 
would  expect  him  to  be  ordained  by  Christ  himself  at  Etshmiadzin  ;  but 
in  all  accounts  he  goes  afterwards  to  Caesarea  to  be  ordained  by  Leontius. 

1  The  Bagratuni  line  of  kings  under  the  Khalif . 

2  Since  Caesarea  was,  of  course,  in  communion  with  Rome  and  the 
Catholic  Church  throughout  the  world. 

3  Autonomy  in  the  only  possible  Catholic  sense,  namely,  independence 
of  Patriarchal  authority.  A  Catholic  autonomous  local  Church  remains, 
of  course,  always  subject  to  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Church  of  Christ 
herself,  and  to  his  Vicar  at  Rome.  It  can  no  more  be  independent  of  that 
than  it  can  be  independent  of  Christ.  A  parallel  case  of  autonomy  without 
schism  is  that  of  Cyprus  after  the  Council  of  Ephesus  {Orth.  Eastern  Church, 
47-48). 


THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH  IN   THE  PAST    411 

Yet,  by  the  wrongful  act  of  a  wicked  king,  the  link  which  bound 
Armenian  Christendom  most  clearly  to  the  Church  from  which 
it  had  received  the  gospel,  the  bond  which  gave  Armenia  her 
right  place  in  the  orderly  scheme  of  the  universal  hierarchy,  was 
broken.  Like  the  Persians  when  they  broke  with  Edessa,  the 
Armenians  lost  their  moorings  and  sailed  out  unprotected  into 
the  storm  of  heresy  and  schism  which  was  to  wreck  their  Church. 


5.  Monophysite  Armenia 

The  Church  of  Armenia  in  the  6th  century  turned  Monophysite. 
There  is  not  the  slightest  doubt  on  this  subject ;  the  "  Gregorian  " 
Church  is  still  Monophysite  (p.  425).  That  she  did  not  accept 
all  Eutyches'  theories,  that  she  even  anathematizes  that  heretic 
(p.  424),  does  not  matter  at  all.  As  we  have  seen  (p.  312), 
Monophysite  Churches  reject  Eutyches.  The  test  is  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon  ;  Armenia  formally  rejected  and  still  rejects 
that  council.  But  of  all  Monophysite  bodies  the  Armenian 
Church  can  best  be  excused  for  her  acceptance  of  the  heresy. 
She  took  no  part  in  the  great  Monophysite  controversy  ;  she  did 
not  at  first  make  Monophysism  her  national  cause,  as  did  the 
Copts.  She  stood  aloof  from  the  whole  quarrel,  knew  nothing 
of  it  till  long  after,  and  then  took  the  wrong  side  by  an  unhappy 
mistake.  The  real  tragedy  is  not  so  much  her  half-hearted  ac- 
ceptance of  a  subtle  heresy,  but,  as  usual,  the  formal  schism  into 
which  she  thereby  fell. 

When  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  met  in  451,  ten  Armenian 
bishops  were  present  and  signed  its  acts.1  When  they  went 
home  they  must  have  told  their  colleagues  what  had  happened. 
There  was  at  first  no  remonstrance  ;  we  may  take  it  that  at  first, 
at  least  implicitly,  Armenia  accepted  the  council.  But  the 
people  were  prejudiced  against  it.  In  the  first  place,  the  country 
was  then  in  the  direst  straits.  It  was  being  overrun  by  the 
Persians,  who  cruelly  persecuted  native  Christians.  The  Ar- 
menians had  little  leisure  to  consider  the  question  of  our  Lord's 
natures  and  person.     Then  the  Romans  had  deserted  them  heart- 

1  Tournebize,  p.  87. 


412        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

lessly.  The  Emperor  (Marcian,  450-457)  had  not  brought  them 
the  help  they  hoped.  They  were  embittered  against  him  ;  Chal- 
cedon  was  his  work.  Gradually  their  feeling  against  Chalcedon 
grew.  From  the  Syrian  Monophysites  they  heard  of  this  new 
synod  as  having  undone  the  work  of  Ephesus.1  Armenia  had 
taken  her  part  with  Ephesus  ;  she  approved  warmly  of  that 
council.  Was  it  not  enough  to  stand  by  Ephesus  ?  What  was 
this  new  synod,  which  confused  the  issue,  seemed  to  abandon 
Ephesus,  to  set  up  a  fresh  standard  ?  Further,  their  language 
helped  to  strengthen  their  dislike  of  Chalcedon.  For  the  two 
terms,  nature  (<£vW)  and  hypostasis,  on  which  the  whole  ques- 
tion turns,  they  had  only  one  word,  ftnuthiun.2  A  Greek  might 
confess  two  natures  in  one  hypostasis  ;  but  how  could  an  Ar- 
menian speak  of  two  pnuthiuns  3  in  Christ,  without  seeming  to 
fall  into  Nestorianism  ?  And  then,  as  so  often  happens,  this 
abstract  question  was  crossed  by  a  practical  one  of  politics. 
Once  more  national  feeling,  loyalty  to  the  cause  of  Armenia, 
their  determination  to  be  independent  of  a  dangerous  foreign 
power,  did  more  than  philosophical  considerations  to  make  Ar- 
menia Monophysite.  They  did  not  want  to  become  Greeks. 
They  meant  to  keep  their  nation  independent  of  the  empire. 
Chalcedon  was  the  council  of  the  Emperor  ;  its  decrees  were  the 
faith  of  the  Greeks.  Like  the  Copts  and  Jacobites,  the  Arme- 
nians would  not  become  Melkites — Emperor's  men.  Oddly 
enough,  the  Persian  persecutor  who  then  dominated  Armenia  saw 
the  political  advantage  to  himself  of  such  a  schism,  encouraged 
it,  and  the  Armenians  listened  for  once  to  their  greatest  enemy. 

So  the  Armenian  Church  formally  rejected  the  faith  of  Chal- 
cedon and  excommunicated  all  who  held  it.  She  adopted  as  her 
religion  the  faith  of  Dioscor,  Severus  and  the  Monophysites  ; 
she  even  introduced  the  famous  Monophysite  addition  to  the 
Trisagion  (p.  190)  so  that  her  position  should  be  clear.  First 
the  Katholikos  Babken  (490-515)  in  a  Synod  of  Valarshapat  (491) 
approved  Zeno's  Henotikon  ;    then  Nerses  II    (548-557)    in   a 

1  A  Monophysite  synod  at  Edessa  in  482  condemned  Chalcedon  as  con- 
tradicting Ephesus. 

2  Later  they  found  a  word  for  (pvais — euthiun  or  koiuthiun  (Tournebize, 
P-  555,  n.  5). 

3  Pnuthiunkh  is  the  plural  form. 


THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH  IN   THE  PAST    413 

Synod  of  Tovin  (Duin),  apparently  in  554,1  clinched  the  matter. 
This  is  what  a  collection  of  Armenian  canons  says  of  it :  "  The 
Patriarch  Nerses  summoned  at  Tovin  a  synod  against  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon,  because  the  error  of  two  natures  in  Jesus  Christ 
was  making  terrible  progress.  He  decreed  that  we  must  believe 
in  the  unity  of  the  nature  of  Jesus  Christ ;  he  united  in  one  feast 
Christmas  and  the  Baptism  of  Jesus  Christ  2  as  a  sign  of  the  unit- 
ing of  the  two  natures  in  one  only,  without  distinction  ;  and  he 
added  to  the  Trisagion  these  words  :  '  who  wast  crucified  for  us/ 
in  order  to  protest  against  the  distinction  of  two  natures."  3  So 
the  Armenian  national  Church  took  her  side  definitely  against 
Chalcedon.  She  has  wavered  several  times.  In  order  to  gain 
protection  from  the  Byzantines,  and  still  more  when  she  was 
closely  allied  with  the  Latin  Crusaders  (namely,  the  Cilician 
kingdom  of  Armenia,  pp.  389,  415),  she  has  at  intervals  retracted 
her  heresy.  But  she  always  came  back  to  it.  It  was  the 
national  faith ;  she  still  stands  by  the  Synod  of  Tovin  and  rejects 
Chalcedon.  One  immediate  result  shows  again  plainly  her  posi- 
tion. Hitherto  Armenia  had  herself  two  daughter-Churches 
■ — Iberia  and  Caspian  Albania.4  They  say  that  St.  Gregory  the 
Illuminator  had  sent  bishops  to  convert  these  parts.  At  any 
rate,  till  the  fifth  century  the  Churches  of  Iberia  (Georgia)  and 
Albania  depended  on  the  Armenian  Katholikos,  as  he  had  de- 
pended on  the  Metropolitan  of  Caesarea.  The  Iberian  Primate 
was  also  a  Katholikos,  for  the  same  reason  as  his  Armenian 
brother  and  chief  (p.  405) .  The  Armenians  dragged  Albania  into 
heresy  with  them.  But  the  Georgian  Katholikos,  Kyrion,  ac- 
cepted Chalcedon.  So  Abraham  I,  the  Armenian  Primate  (607- 
615),  summoned  a  synod,  as  usual  at  his  residence  Tovin,  and 

1  There  is  a  difficulty  about  the  dates.  Tournebize  gives  three  synods  : 
Valarshapat  under  Babken  in  491,  Tovin  I  under  Nerses  "  about  527  (?)," 
Tovin  II  under  Moses  II  in  551  ;  and  he  explains  that  the  Armenian  tra- 
dition has  confused  Tovin  I  and  Tovin  II  (op.  cit.  90-91).  Ormanian 
(28-29)  gives  Tovin  I  under  Babken  in  506,  Tovin  II  under  Nerses  II  in  554. 

2  This  is  an  error.  The  Armenian  Church  never  had  a  special  Christ- 
mas (p.  437). 

3  Quoted  by  Tournebize  :   op.    it.  90-91. 

4  This  is  Albania  in  the  Caucasus,  a  little  land  between  Georgia  and  the 
Caspian  Sea,  not,  of  course,  the  better  known  Albania  in  the  west  of  the 
Balkan  Peninsula. 


414        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

excommunicated  him  (609). 1  That  broke  all  connection  between 
Armenia  and  Georgia.  The  Georgian  Church  remained  Ortho- 
dox.2 Under  Heraclius  (610-641)  occurred  the  first  of  the  tem- 
porary reunions  of  the  Armenians.  He  drove  the  Persians  from 
their  land,  was  their  benefactor  and  protector,  and  invited  them 
to  come  back  to  the  great  Church,  Catholic  and  Orthodox.  In 
a  synod  at  Erzerum  (c.  629)  3  their  Katholikos  with  his  clergy 
did  so.  But  there  was  already  a  firm  Monophysite  party  in  Ar- 
menia. After  the  Saracen  conquest  (p.  386)  the  Church  relapsed 
into  what  had  become  her  national  faith.  A  synod  at  Tovin  in  645 , 
after  the  Romans  had  left  the  land,  again  denounced  Chalcedon. 
The  Church,  now  in  schism,  naturally  had  no  longer  any  de- 
pendence on  Caesarea  or  on  any  other  Chalcedonian  see.  She 
became  autocephalous  in  the  strictest  sense,  out  of  communion 
with  every  other  religious  body.  The  Armenians  did  not  even 
establish  formal  intercommunion  with  their  fellow-Monophysites  4 
in  Egypt  and  Syria.5 


6.  The  Five  Armenian  Patriarchs 

The  later  history  of  the  Armenian  Church  is  mainly  one  long 
story  of  simony,  quarrels,  schisms  and  rival  Patriarchs.  It  is  a 
dull  and  dispiriting  history  into  which  we  need  not  go  in  detail.6 
There  would  be  little  of  general  interest  to  a  Western  reader  in 
these  quarrels.  In  general  we  may  say  that,  besides  the  endless 
rivalries  of  usurping  Patriarchs,  there  are  continually  tentative 
efforts  at  reunion,  made  by  both  Orthodox  and  Catholics,7  never 

1  Ormanian,  p.  32.     Tournebize  gives  the  date  596  (p.  92). 

2  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  304-305.  3  Tournebize  :   op.  cit.  p.  95. 

4  There  is  some  theological  difference  between  the  Monophysism  of 
Armenia  and  that  of  the  Copts  and  Jacobites  (see  p.  425). 

5  This  is  a  difficult  and  rather  subtle  question  ;    see  p.  432. 

6  Accounts  of  the  succession  of  quarrels  will  be  found  in  Ormanian  (who 
naturally  always  makes  the  best  of  them),  and  Tournebize,  op.  cit.  Simony 
is  a  special  offence  during  all  this  time.  The  Patriarchate  for  long  intervals 
was  regularly  bought  for  money  ;    Ormanian,  p.  56. 

7  As  a  result  of  such  temporary  partial  reconciliations  some  Armenian 
bishops  were  present  at  the  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh  General  Councils 
(Constantinople  II  in  553,  Constantinople  III  in  680,  Nicaea  II  in  787). 
Some  of  their  writers  claim  that  these  synods  are    acknowledged  by  the 


THE  ARMENIAN   CHURCH  IN   THE   PAST     415 

with  a  permanent  result,  till  we  come  to  the  first  Uniates  (roughly 
since  the  13th  century)  .1  We  must  remember  above  all  that  the 
Armenian  people  kept  the  Christian  faith,  although  in  a  schis- 
matical  Church,  during  all  the  centuries  of  their  oppression  by 
Moslems. 

But  a  word  must  be  said  about  the  schisms  among  themselves 
which  have  left  a  result  till  now.  The  Katholikos-Patriarch  still 
had  no  fixed  residence  (p.  403).  He  wandered  about  with  the 
court  as  the  capital  changed.  We  saw  him  at  Ani  (p.  410). 
The  Moslems  ruined  that  city  in  the  10th  century.  There  were 
then  various  Armenian  princes  who  kept  by  force  of  arms  their 
independence  (p.  387).  One  of  these  was  the  prince  (or  king)  of 
Van,  who  had  made  himself  a  small  kingdom  around  Lake  Van. 
The  Katholikos  Hovhannes  (John)  V  (899-931)  came  to  his  court 
and  established  himself  on  an  island  in  the  lake  called  Aghthamar. 
Here  were  a  church  and  monastery  where  Hovhannes  and  three 
successors  resided.  Then  came  the  usual  schism.  Ananias  (943- 
967)  left  Aghthamar  and  went  and  placed  himself  under  the 
protection  of  another  small  king  of  Ani.  He  lived  near  Ani  at 
Arkina.  His  successor,  Vahan  I  (967-969),  was  supposed  to  have 
Chalcedonian  tendencies  ;  so  the  bishops  of  Van  deposed  him  and 
set  up  Stephen  III  (969-971)  at  Aghthamar.  Each  king  (of  Van 
and  Ani)  supported  his  own  candidate.  Eventually  union  was 
restored  under  Katshik  I  (971-992).  When  the  kingdom  of 
Cilician  Armenia  was  founded  (p.  388)  the  Katholikos  went  to 
reside  at  its  capital  Sis.  Fifteen  Patriarchs  lived  here,  from  1294 
to  1441.  During  this  time  reunion  with  Rome  was  brought 
about.  We  have  seen  that  the  kings  of  Cilician  Armenia  were 
exceedingly  friendly  with  the  Crusaders  and  submitted  to  strong 
Latin  influence  (p.  389).  They,  the  Patriarchs  and  clergy,  after 
some  negotiations,  came  back  to  the  communion  of  the  Catholic 
Church.2  For  a  time  the  Armenian  Church  officially  was  Uniate. 
The  fact  is  symbolized  by  the  crowning  of  King  Leo  II  by  the 

Gregorian  Church  (Armenian  Liturgy,  by  two  priests,  Cope  and  Fenwick, 
1908,  p.  ix).  But  the  constant  teaching  of  their  Church  and  of  their  chief 
theologians  is  that  only  the  first  three  general  councils  are  really  authentic 
(e.g.  Ormanian  :   op.  cit.  78). 

1  Of  whom  in  our  next  volume. 

2  This  will  be  described  in  detail  in  our  next  volume. 


416        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Armenian  Katholikos  and  a  Latin  Cardinal  together  (p.  389). 
From  this  time  dates  the  considerable  Latinization  of  the  national 
Church.  Even  after  the  union  was  broken,  many  traces  of  Latin 
influence,  notably  in  rites,  remain  in  the  Gregorian  Church.1 
Meanwhile,  among  the  Armenians  of  the  old  country,  who  were 
not  subject  to  the  kings  of  Cilician  Armenia,  there  was  still 
strong  feeling  against  abandoning  their  traditional  Monophysism. 
So  some  of  them  renew  the  old  claim  of  Aghthamar  and  set  up 
a  rival  Patriarch  there.  In  1439  Gregory  IX  was  elected,  ap- 
parently quite  regularly,  at  Sis.  But  he  was  a  Uniate  ;  so  again 
the  schismatics  of  Old  Armenia  set  up  a  rival,  not  this  time  at 
Aghthamar. 

We  have  already  mentioned  Etshmiadzin  (p.  398).  Although 
the  legend  that  St.  Gregory  the  Illuminator  lived  there  is  not 
true,  it  is  one  of  the  oldest  and  most  venerable  Armenian  sanctu- 
aries. It  is  situated  near  Ani,  where  the  Katholikos  had  once 
reigned,  and  near  Mount  Ararat  where  Armenian  devotion  sees 
the  place  of  Noah's  Ark  and  the  second  cradle  of  our  race.2  So 
here,  at  Etshmiadzin,  the  schismatical  bishops  elected  and  con- 
secrated Kirakos  (Kyriakos)  I  (of  Virap,  1441-1443)  as  Katho- 
likos-Patriarch.  There  were  now  three  sees  claiming  the  Patri- 
archate— Sis,  Aghthamar,  and  Etshmiadzin.  It  seems  clear  that 
Sis  had  the  legitimate  succession.  The  old  line,  hitherto 
acknowledged  by  all,  comes  straight  down  to  Gregory  IX  at  Sis. 
Both  the  other  claimants  were  schismatical  pretenders.  But  Sis 
was  Uniate.  Had  the  union  lasted,  the  line  of  Sis  would  appar- 
ently have  maintained  itself,  and  those  of  Aghthamar  and  Etsh- 
miadzin would  have  come  to  the  usual  speedy  end  of  Armenian 
schisms.  The  union  did  not  last ;  the  schismatics  rallied  round 
Etshmiadzin  and  eventually  that  line  won.  Now  occurs  a  new 
factor.  The  Katholikos  kept  a  real  or  supposed  relic  of  the 
Illuminator,  his  right  arm,  called  the  holy  Atsh.3  This  was  and 
still  is  used  at  his  ordination.  It  is  laid  on  his  head  as  a  kind  of 
supplementary  imposition  of  hands.     In  the  complicated  rivalries 

1  See  p.  441. 

2  Or  even  the  first  cradle.  For  one  of  the  places  where  the  Garden  of 
Eden  is  supposed  to  have  been  is  by  Ararat ;  Armenians  believe  this  firmly 
(Ter.  Gregor  :   History  of  Armenia,  14-15). 

3  Atsh  means  "  right  arm." 


THE  ARMENIAN   CHURCH  IN   THE   PAST     417 

of  alleged  Patriarchs,  the  possession  of  this  relic  (and  its  use  in 
ordination)  was  supposed  to  be  the  sign  of  legitimate  succession. 
There  was  one  alleged  holy  Atsh  at  Sis.  At  Etshmiadzin  they 
had  what  they  claimed  to  be  the  true  holy  Atsh.  When  Kirakos 
of  Etshmiadzin,  despairing  of  the  state  of  his  Church,  resigned 
in  1443,  his  party  elected  and  ordained  Gregory  X  to  succeed 
him  (1443-1466).  But  Zachary  of  Aghthamar  was  ordained 
Patriarch  by  his  friends  ;  he  took  possession  of  Etshmiadzin 
itself  in  1461.  Then,  when  he  was  turned  out  by  Gregory  X  in 
1462,  he  went  off  to  Aghthamar,  taking  the  holy  Atsh  with  him 
and  maintaining  his  claim.  The  relic  was  not  brought  back  to 
Etshmiadzin,  till  it  was  stolen  in  1477  by  partisans  of  the  line  of 
Gregory  X.  Then  the  kingdom  of  Cilician  Armenia  fell  to  pieces 
(p.  389) ,  the  influence  of  the  Crusaders  was  over,  and  all  Armenians 
returned  to  schism.  The  Patriarch  at  Etshmiadzin,  partly 
through  the  sanctity  of  his  monastery,1  partly  through  that  of 
his  recovered  and  now  universally  admitted  holy  Atsh,  secured 
the  allegiance  of  all  the  Church.  His  line  still  resides  there  ;  by 
dint  of  ignoring  schisms  and  making  a  straight-looking  succession 
they  trace  their  line  from  St.  Gregory,  nay  from  St.  Thaddaeus 
and  St.  Bartholomew  the  apostles.2  Etshmiadzin,  the  national 
sanctuary,  has  been  enriched  with  many  legends,  tending  to  show 
not  only  that  it  was  the  home  of  St.  Gregory,  but  that  it  had 
always  been,  at  least  in  principle,  the  seat  of  the  Katholikos. 
The  lines  of  Sis  and  Aghthamar  acknowledged  the  supremacy  of 
Etshmiadzin,  but,  as  a  bribe  to  make  them  do  so,  they  too  were 
allowed  to  keep  the  title  Patriarch.  Sis  became  an  inferior 
Patriarchate,3  under  Etshmiadzin,  but  having  considerable 
metropolitical  jurisdiction  ;  Aghthamar  remained  a  merely  titular 
Patriarchate  (p.  430). 

The  Armenians  then  became  used  to  the  idea  of  other  Patri- 
archs under  the  supreme  Katholikos-Patriarch.  Once  that  is 
admitted  it  does  not  much  matter  how  many  there  are.  As  a 
matter  of  fact  two  more  were  formed.     Since  1307  they  had  a 

1  For  the  legends  about  St.  Gregory  at  Etshmiadzin  were,  naturally, 
accepted. 

2  This  line  of  Patriarchs  is  given  in  Ormanian  (op.  cit.  171-180)  with  dates. 

3  It  was  not  finally  reconciled  till  1651. 

27 


4i8        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

bishop  at  Constantinople  for  their  colony  there.  When  Mo- 
hammed the  Conqueror  took  the  city  (1459),  according  to  the 
rather  stupid  Turkish  idea  of  uniformity  he  wanted  to  organize 
the  subject  Armenian  "  nation  "  on  the  same  lines  as  the  "  Roman 
nation  "  (the  Orthodox).  These  had  as  supreme  civil  head  1  in 
Turkey  a  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  ;  so  the  Conqueror  organ- 
ized the  Armenians  on  just  the  same  lines.  He  meant  them  to 
have  a  responsible  chief  at  the  capital,  so  he  ignored  the  Katho- 
likos  in  a  distant  monastery,  and  made  the  Armenian  Bishop  of 
Constantinople,  Hovakim  (Joachim,  formerly  of  Brusa),  Patriarch 
in  1461,  gave  him  civil  authority  over  all  Armenians  in  the 
Turkish  Empire  and  the  sole  right  of  representing  them  before 
the  Government.2  The  Church  acquiesced  in  this.  Since  then 
there  has  been  an  Armenian  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  second 
to  the  Katholikos  in  rank,  acknowledging  a  theoretic  supremacy 
in  him,  but  practically  the  most  powerful  member  of  the  Armenian 
hierarchy.  The  origin  of  their  Patriarchate  of  Jerusalem  is  even 
more  unwarranted.  They  had  a  bishop  there,  as  have  most 
Eastern  Churches.  In  the  middle  of  the  18th  century  the  Katho- 
likos seems  to  have  allowed  this  bishop  to  bless  the  holy  chrism. 
Encouraged  by  this,  seeing  himself  in  a  Patriarchal  city,  knowing 
too  that  his  brother  at  Constantinople  had  obtained  the  title  and 
that  it  was  becoming  very  cheap,  the  Armenian  Bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem declared  himself  a  Patriarch  too,  and  began  to  ordain 
bishops.  The  Katholikos  stopped  this  ;  but  he  kept  the  title. 
So  it  came  about  that  the  Armenian  Church  has  five  Patriarchs — 
the  Katholikos  at  Etshmiadzin  and  the  Patriarchs  of  Constanti- 
nople, Sis,  Aghthamar,3  and  Jerusalem. 

We  may  note  here  that  as  the  Armenians  wandered  throughout 
Europe  and  Asia  (p.  387)  the  Katholikos  began  to  ordain  bishops 


1  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  238-240. 

2  Till  the  19th  century  the  Armenian  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  had 
these  same  civil  rights  over  all  Monophysites  in  the  empire.  Copts  and 
Jacobites  could  approach  the  Porte  only  through  him.  Now  the  Jacobite 
Patriarch  of  Antioch  is  the  acknowledged  civil  head  of  his  "  nation,"  and 
the  Copts  have  nothing  more  to  do  with  the  Porte.  Indeed,  the  latest 
developments  (the  constitution  of  1908)  are  abolishing  the  whole  principle 
of  separate  "  nations  "  with  civil  heads. 

3  Those  of  Sis  and  Aghthamar  are  now  also  called  "  Katholikos." 


THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH  IN   THE  PAST    419 

for  their  colonies  in  all  parts.     Katshik  I  (971-992,  p.  415)  is 
said  to  be  the  first  who  did  so.1 


7.  The  Nineteenth  Century 

The  last  century  brought  great  changes  to  the  Armenian 
Church.  Hitherto  she  had  languished  obscurely  under  the  Turk. 
Now  came  two  events  which  affected  her  profoundly — intercourse 
with  the  West  involving  the  spread  of  European  ideas  and  the 
arrival  of  Protestant  missionaries,  and,  even  more,  the  Russian 
conquest  of  Transcaucasus  in  1829. 

The  general  interest  in  the  ancient  Eastern  Churches  aroused 
in  Europe  in  the  19th  century  turned  to  the  Armenians  too. 
Already  the  Uniates,  notably  the  Mekhitarist  monks  at  Venice,2 
had  a  printing  press  and  had  began  to  disseminate  Armenian 
books.  Now  the  Protestants  took  up  the  cause.  Armenians 
began  to  come  to  European  schools,  Europeans  began  to  visit 
and  write  about  Armenia.  Then,  inevitably,  came  Protestant 
missionaries,  with  their  crude  attempts  to  improve  a  Church 
which  had  kept  immeasurably  more  of  historic  Christianity  than 
their  own  sects.  First  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society 
distributed  Bibles  in  the  vulgar  tongue.  Then  both  Anglicans 
and  American  Presbyterians  formed  Armenian  Protestant  sects. 
The  Americans  have  done  much  the  most  work.  Their  mission 
began  in  1831.  At  first,  as  usual,  they  disclaimed  any  idea  of 
proselytizing.  They  only  wanted  to  teach,  exhort  and  spiri- 
tualize the  Armenians,  victims  of  too  superstitious  a  doctrine. 
All  Protestant  missions  in  the  Levant  begin  like  that.  Of  course 
their  teaching  was  hopelessly  opposed  to  that  of  the  clergy.  Al- 
ready in  1839  they  came  into  conflict  with  the  hierarchy.  In 
1844  the  Armenian  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  very  properly 
excommunicated  all  who  attend  their  services.  Since  then  the 
Presbyterians  have  broken  all  pretence  of  regarding  the  Ar- 
menian Church.  They  make  converts  frankly  wherever  they  can. 
They  have  built  up  a  considerable  Protestant  Armenian  sect,  with 
stations  and  chapels  all  over  the  Levant.     This  sect  forms  a  fairly 

1  Ormanian  :   op.  cit.  39. 

2  This,  too,  belongs  to  the  next  volume. 


420        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

large  minority ;  they  are  said  to  number  nearly  forty-six 
thousand  in  the  Turkish  Empire.1  The  Anglicans  have  formed  a 
small  sect  around  Aintab.  It  had  a  schismatical  bishop  named 
Meguerditsh,  who  was  admitted  to  inter-communion  by  the 
Anglican-Lutheran  bishop  in  Jerusalem,  Samuel  Gobat,  in  1865. 
They  have  a  mutilated  version  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
in  Armeno-Turkish  (Turkish  in  Armenian  letters).  Meguerditsh 
died  in  1904  and  left  only  a  priest  and  a  deacon  to  carry  on  his 
sect.2  There  is  also  a  small  group  of  Armenians  at  Egin  on  the 
upper  Euphrates  who  are  Orthodox.3 

A  greater  event  to  Armenians  was  the  Russian-Turkish  War 
of  1828.  In  this  story  the  Russian  Government  behaved  as  it 
always  does.  Until  the  Armenians  were  in  its  power  it  made  all 
kinds  of  fair  promises  ;  when  it  got  them  it  persecuted  them. 
Russia  was  anxious  to  get  them  to  help  her  against  Turkey.  So 
she  promised  everything.  If  only  she  could  conquer  Trans- 
caucasus,  the  Armenians  would  be  under  a  Christian  Emperor, 
under  the  great  protector  of  all  Eastern  Christians.  It  is  the  old 
myth  of  the  Czar-liberator,  believed  with  childlike  confidence, 
till  he  does  liberate.  The  Czar  Nicholas  I  (1825-1855)  in  the 
"  Polojenye  "  law  of  1836  4  made  the  most  definite  promises  of 
toleration,  non-interference  in  their  Church,  which  he  shame- 
lessly broke  later.  The  Armenians,  loathing  the  Turkish  tyrant, 
guilelessly  believed  him.  They  thought  a  Christian  Czar,  even  if 
a  Chalcedonian,  would  treat  them  at  least  better  then  the  Moslem. 
So  they  rose  for  Russia  in  1828-1829  and  rejoiced  when  the  Peace 
of  1829  gave  their  new  friends  the  greater  part  of  Transcaucasia 
(p.  390).  They  were  mistaken.  By  this  conquest  Russia  ob- 
tained not  only  a  large  Armenian  population  but  the  holy  place 
Etshmiadzin,  the  seat  of  the  Katholikos.     It  is  true  the  Russian 


1  So  Petermann-Gelzer  in  the  Prot.  Realencyklopddie  (1897),  ii.  90. 
Many  Armenians  study  at  the  American  Protestant  (Congregationalist) 
Robert  College,  founded  in  1863,  on  the  Bosphorus,  at  Rumili  Hisar. 

2  An  account  of  these  "  Anglican  Armenians  "  by  the  Anglican  chaplain 
at  Beirut  (the  Rev.  J.  T.  Parfit),  will  be  found  in  Archdeacon  Dowling : 
The  Armenian  Church  (S.P.C.K.,  1910),  pp.  144-148. 

3  Dowling  :   op.  cit.  p.  18. 

4  See  H.  F.  B.  Lynch  :  Armenia,  Travels  and  Studies  (2  vols.,  Longmans, 
1901),  i.  229,  seq. 


THE   ARMENIAN   CHURCH   IN    THE   PAST     421 

does  not  massacre  ;  but  as  far  as  the  state  of  the  Armenian 
Church  goes  he  is  worse  than  the  Turk.  For  the  Turk,  even 
when  he  massacres,  lets  the  internal  ecclesiastical  affairs  of 
Christians  alone.  The  Russian  interferes  with  these.  Even  in 
the  law  of  1836  the  Czar  showed  his  usual  Erastianism  over  a 
Church  with  which  he  is  not  in  communion.  His  consent  is 
necessary  before  the  Katholikos  is  appointed,  and  he  makes  the 
Armenians  wait  regularly  one  year  between  the  appointment  and 
ordination.1  The  Orthodox  Government  interferes  in  all  Ar- 
menian ecclesiastical  affairs.  It  controls  their  property  and 
annoys  them  in  every  kind  of  way.  No  one  may  be  converted 
to  the  Armenian  Church.2  On  the  whole  the  Katholikos  would 
prefer  the  Turk.  Two  results  follow  from  this.  First,  it  has 
finally  put  off  reunion  between  the  Armenians  and  the  Orthodox. 
Otherwise  this  would  be  the  most  probable  reunion  in  Christen- 
dom. Armenians  and  Orthodox  are  very  near  in  faith  and  were 
quite  friendly.  They  might  easily  have  amalgamated.  But  now 
there  is  nothing  the  Armenians  in  Russia  (nearly  half  their  Church) 
dread  so  much.  If  they  turned  Orthodox  they  know  well  that 
their  fate  would  be  that  of  Georgia.  Russian  bishops  would  be 
sent  to  govern  them  ;  there  would  be  no  Armenian  Church  and 
no  Armenia.  The  stupid  bullying  of  Russia  makes  Armenians 
cling  to  their  Monophysism  as  the  one  principle  which  preserves 
their  nation.3  The  other  result  is  the  practical  extinction  of  the 
authority  of  the  Katholikos  over  a  great  part  of  his  Church.     He 

1  This  is  apparently  to  give  the  Russian  Government  an  opportunity  of 
worrying  them  while  the  see  is  vacant.  Meanwhile  the  Russian  Pro- 
curator rules  the  Armenian  Church. 

2  For  the  details  of  this  persecution  of  Armenians  by  the  Russian  Govern- 
ment see  articles  in  the  £chos  d'Orient,  vii.  (1904)  5,  129,  176  ;  xiii.  (1910) 
35,  94.  The  most  preposterous  point  is  that  the  Russian  Orthodox  Holy 
Synod  has  the  right  of  supervising  all  Armenian  publications,  in  order  to 
prevent  anything  being  printed  against  the  faith  of  the  Armenian  Church  ! 
For  Russian  interference  in  the  election  of  the  Katholikos  see  p.  428, 
below. 

3  The  idea  that  their  Monophysism  preserves  their  independence  is  a 
favourite  one  with  Armenians  :  "  Had  the  Armenian  Church  recognized 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  her  free  Apostolic  Patriarchal  See  would  have 
been  lost  and  her  independence  would  have  been  subjected  to  the  authority 
of  the  Greek  Church."  Authorised  Catechism  quoted  by  Dowling  :  The 
Armenian  Church,  p.  105. 


422        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

rules  Armenians  in  Russia.  But  to  those  in  Turkey  he  is  too 
much  the  creature  of  the  Russian  Government  to  count.  Their 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople  is  their  chief,  really  independent,  in 
spite  of  his  theoretic  subordination  to  the  Katholikos. 

Summary 

The  Armenian  Church,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  there  were 
Christians  in  the  country  earlier,  in  spite  of  her  alleged  founda- 
tion by  St.  Thaddaeus  and  St.  Bartholomew,  was  founded  really 
by  St.  Gregory  the  Illuminator  in  the  3rd  and  4th  centuries.  He 
was  ordained  at  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  as  were  his  early  suc- 
cessors. Armenia  was  a  missionary  Church  dependent  on  Cae- 
sarea, in  the  Patriarchate  of  Antioch.  After  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  (451)  the  national  Church,  mainly  through  unfortunate 
misunderstandings,  rejected  that  Council  and  adopted  Mono- 
physism  as  her  creed.  This  occurred  under  the  Katholikos 
Nerses  II  at  a  Synod  of  Tovin  about  554.  Since  then  the  na- 
tional Armenian  Church  has  been  in  schism  with  all  the  rest  of 
Christendom.  Her  Katholikos  became  independent  and  called 
himself  a  Patriarch.  The  Church,  like  the  nation,  has  been  torn 
between  different  powers,  riddled  with  quarrels  and  schisms. 
The  Persians  and  Romans  fought  over  Armenia  ;  Persia  especi- 
ally was  long  a  cruel  tyrant.  There  are  many  Armenian  martyrs. 
Then  the  Moslems  took  and  held  the  land.  From  the  nth  to 
the  14th  centuries  an  Armenian  colony  in  Cilicia  maintained  a 
separate  kingdom,  with  Sis  as  its  capital.  This  kingdom  was  on 
good  terms  with  the  Crusaders,  it  was  considerably  Latinized 
(which  influence  is  still  seen  in  the  Armenian  Church) ,  and  was 
Uniate.  The  union  came  to  an  end  with  the  kingdom.  After 
that  the  Katholikos-Patriarch  established  himself  at  Etshmiadzin. 
But  in  reconciling  schisms  he  had  to  admit  two  other  sees,  Sis 
and  Aghthamar,  as  secondary  Patriarchs.  The  Turks  set  up  an 
Armenian  Patriarch  at  Constantinople  ;  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem 
made  himself  one.  In  the  19th  century  Protestant  missionaries 
formed  Protestant  Armenian  sects,  and  Russia  by  conquering 
Transcaucasus  got  Etshmiadzin  in  her  power.  She  has  treated 
the  Armenians  very  badly,  and  the  Katholikos,  too  much  under 


THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH  IN    THE   PAST     423 

Russian  authority,  now  has  little  real  power  outside  Russia.  In 
Turkey  their  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  governs  the  Church. 
Lastly,  the  Armenian  massacres  of  1890,  1893,  1895-1896,  and 
1909,  have  made  the  very  name  of  this  unhappy  people  suggest 
horrors. 


CHAPTER   XIII 

THE   ARMENIAN   CHURCH   TO-DAY 

The  Gregorian  (Monophysite)  Church  of  Armenia  is  as  near  an 
approach  to  a  national  Church  as  exists  (except  perhaps  that 
of  Abyssinia).  A  perfect  national  Church  would  include  all  and 
only  the  people  of  one  nation.  The  Armenian  Church  is  only  for 
Armenians.  It  would  not,  I  think,  be  possible  for  a  foreigner  to 
join  it.  It  includes  at  any  rate  the  greater  part  of  the  nation. 
Not  all,  because  the  Uniates  and  Protestants  form  important 
minorities.  But  if  you  meet  an  Armenian,  whether  in  Calcutta 
or  Manchester,  he  is  most  likely  to  belong  to  the  Gregorian  Church 
and  to  abhor  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  ;  not  that  he  understands 
anything  about  what  that  Council  defined,  but  because  he  is  an 
Armenian.  Undoubtedly  the  national  Church  is  the  main  factor 
which  preserves  and  holds  together  this  people.  What  they 
really  care  about  is  not  a  metaphysical  concept  of  our  Lord's 
person,  but  the  Armenian  rite  in  the  Armenian  language  by  an 
Armenian  priest,  which  to  them  in  foreign  lands  is  a  precious 
inheritance  from  the  wooded  mountains  where  the  sons  of  Haik 
were  once  free  and  happy  under  the  shadow  of  Noah's  Ararat. 

i.  The  Armenian  Faith 

Armenians  resent  being  called  Eutychians,  and  with  reason. 
They  deny  the  special  heresies  of  Eutyches  (pp.  167-169)  ; 
every  Armenian  bishop  at  his  ordination  denounces  him  by  name.1 
But  they  are  heretics,  namely  Monophysites.     They  deny  what 

1  Ormanian,  p.  83. 
424 


THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH   TO-DAY  425 

was  defined  at  Chalcedon,  and  insist  on  the  first  three  Councils 
only.1  They  have  adopted  as  their  official  dogma  the  classical 
Monophysite  phrase  that  our  Lord  has  one  nature  out  of  two. 
He  is  "  one  hypostasis,  one  person,  one  united  nature  (after  the 
union)."  2  But  there  is,  or  was,  some  difference  between  their 
Monophysism  and  that  of  the  Copts  and  Jacobites.  The  Copts 
and  Jacobites  are  Severians,  accepting  the  view  of  Severus  of 
Antioch  that  our  Lord's  body  is  corruptible  (<j>0apr6v).  The 
Armenians  adopted  the  extremer  view  of  Julian  of  Halicarnassus 
that  it  is  incorruptible  (a<f>9apr6v,  see  p.  207).  It  is  then  usual 
to  call  them  Julianist  Monophysites.  May  be  that  this  difference 
had  something  to  do  with  the  fact  that  they  could  never  unite 
with  the  others.  But  there  seems  very  little  trace  of  Julianism 
in  their  formulas  now.  On  the  contrary,  except  for  the  expression 
"  one  nature  "  and  their  rejection  of  Chalcedon,  there  is  nothing, 
on  this  point,  to  which  we  could  object.3  Their  creeds  insist  on 
the  fact  that  Christ  is  really  man,  born  truly  of  his  mother, 
having  a  real  body  and  soul.4  Their  fault  (or  misfortune)  is  at 
bottom  only  their  denial  of  Chalcedon  and  the  schism  thereby 
produced.  As  creeds  they  use  that  of  Nicsea-Constantinople  in 
a  slightly  variant  form,  but  correct ; 5  another  attributed  to  Saint 


1  Lord  Malachy  Ormanian  is  very  proud  of  this.  He  thinks  that  in 
these  days  of  little  faith  the  less  you  ask  people  to  believe  the  better.  Now 
the  Orthodox  insist  on  seven  Councils,  Catholics  on  twenty,  but  Armenians 
on  only  three.  This  is  a  heavy  score  for  them.  And  he  thinks  that  their 
three  are  admitted  universally  (op.  cit.  78-80).  He  is  mistaken.  A  child 
could  tell  him  that  Nestorians  reject  Ephesus  just  as  firmly  as  Monophysites 
reject  Chalcedon.  On  his  principle  Nestorians  are  still  better  off,  since 
they  insist  on  two  Councils  only ;  a  Pneumatomachian  is  still  happier,  for 
he  has  only  one.  And  an  Arian  is  most  to  be  envied  of  all,  for  he  admits 
none.  To  claim  an  advantage  in  easiness  of  faith  by  the  mechanical 
process  of  inverse  proportion  to  the  Councils  you  acknowledge  is  a  child's 
way  of  proceeding,  only  to  be  found  in  an  Oriental. 

2  In  the  creed  they  profess  at  ordination,  quoted  by  Tournebize  :  op.  cit. 
568.     Cf.  Ormanian,  p.  83. 

3  The  case  for  Armenian  "  orthodoxy  "  has  often  been  made  by  their 
Anglican  friends.  Dowling  (op.  cit.  60-64)  does  what  he  can  to  exonerate 
them.  He  quotes  several  correct  sayings  by  Armenians;  but  nothing 
can  get  over  the  fact  that  their  Church  formally  rejects  the  definition  of 
Chalcedon. 

4  See  Tournebize,  p.  557. 

5  In  Tournebize,  Armenian  and  French,  553-555. 


426        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Athanasius  x  and  a  symbol  read  at  ordinations,  which  contains 
the  Monophysite  form  quoted  above  (p.  425).  This  was  appar- 
ently composed  about  the  14th  century.2  In  all  other  points  we 
shall  understand  their  position  best  by  conceiving  it  as  practically 
that  of  the  Orthodox.  They  have  never  officially  rejected  the 
procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost  from  the  Father  and  Son  ;  some  of 
their  hymns  seem  even  to  imply  it.  But  now  they  have  learned 
to  protest  against  our  addition  to  the  creed.3  They  sing  the 
Monophysite  addition  to  the  Trisagion  (p.  190).  They  once  had 
seven  Sacraments  ;  now  they  do  not  administer  Extreme  Unction. 
Tournebize  brings  clear  contemporary  evidence  that  they  used 
this  Sacrament  down  to  the  14th  century.  They  did  so  by  seven 
priests,  just  as  do  the  Orthodox.4  Their  catechisms  still  give 
exactly  our  list  of  seven  Sacraments,  including  "  Anointing  the 
sick."  5  They  believe  in  the  Real  Presence,  and  not  only  define  it 
as  transubstantiation,  but  have  used  exact  Armenian  equivalents 
of  /Acrovo-tWis.6  They  are  quite  definite  that  the  Eucharist  is 
a  sacrifice,  but  believe  that  the  Invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
consecrates.7  They  believe  in  the  Sacrament  of  Penance  and 
use  it,  but  not  very  often.  It  is  considered  obligatory  before 
great  feasts  (p.  440)  .8  They  have  unbounded  devotion  to  "  the 
all  holy  Mother  of  God,  the  ever  virgin  Mary/' 9  and  the  other 
saints.  They  invoke  these,10  and  keep  pictures  of  them  in 
churches,  which  are  blessed  with  chrism.11  They  have  no  statues. 
They  treat  relics  of  saints  with  great  reverence  and  expose  them 
on  their  altars  at  feasts.12  They  have  innumerable  prayers  for 
the  dead,13  and  keep  a  number  of  days  as  All  Souls  (p.  438). 

1  Not  our  "  Athanasian  Creed,"  Tournebize,  555-561.  It  is  also  quite 
correct. 

2  lb.  565-569.  3  lb.  571-572.  4  lb.  587-588. 

5  Instruction  in  the  Christian  Faith,  translated  by  S.  C.  Malan  (Rivingtons, 
1869),  P-  19- 

6  Tournebize,  pp.  580-581.  7  lb.  583-584.  8  lb.  586. 

8  So  in  their  liturgy ;  Brightman  :  Eastern  Liturgies,  p.  445.  Our 
Lady's  feasts  are  even  counted  among  those  "  of  the  Lord  "  (p.  437). 

10  E.g.  in  the  preparatory  prayers  of  the  liturgy  ;    ib.  415. 

11  Ormanian  :  op.  cit.  84.  Tournebize  says  that  the  use  of  holy  pictures 
in  Armenian  churches  is  becoming  rarer  (op.  cit.  p.  632).  On  the  other 
hand,  churches  I  have  seen  (for  instance,  their  great  cathedral  of  St.  James 
at  Jerusalem)  are  crowded  with  pictures. 

12  Tournebize,  pp.  629-630.  13  E.g.  Brightman,  p.  443. 


THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH   TO-DAY         427 

They  believe  in  an  intermediate  state  in  which  souls  are  helped 
by  our  prayers  (exactly  our  Purgatory),  yet  now  they  pretend 
that  they  do  not  believe  in  Purgatory.1  They  call  the  Blessed 
Virgin  "  immaculate,"  "  very  pure  and  without  stain,"  "  without 
corruption,"  2  and  they  keep  the  feast  of  her  Conception  on 
December  9.  But  they  will  not  admit  that  they  accept  the 
Immaculate  Conception. 

Naturally  they  deny  the  Pope's  universal  jurisdiction  and  the 
definition  of  the  Vatican  Council  (1870)  .3  They  acknowledge 
him  as  Patriarch  of  the  West  and  first  of  all  Christian  bishops. 
They,  alone  of  Eastern  Churches,  seem  to  have  evolved  a  kind  of 
branch  theory  which  includes,  apparently,  all  Christians  of  any 
sect.4  And,  at  least,  some  of  their  theologians  have  a  theory 
which  distinguishes  necessary  "  dogmas  "  from  true  but  not 
necessary  "  doctrines  "  in  a  curious  way.5 

2.  The  Hierarchy 

By  a  polite  convention  of  the  usual  kind,  which,  of  course, 
concedes  nothing  really,  we  call  the  Monophysite  Church  of 
Armenia  "  Gregorian,"  after  the  Illuminator,6  although  he  was 
without  any  question  a  Catholic  in  union  with  Rome  (p.  .404). 
They  need  a  special  name  to  distinguish  them  from  Catholic 
Armenians  and  Protestant  Armenians.  Over  this  Church  rules 
as  Primate  the  Supreme  Katholikos  at  Etshmiadzin.  He  has 
real  jurisdiction  in  his  own   patriarchate,  which  contains  five 

1  Ormanian,  p.  84.  It  is  the  same  perverseness  as  with  the  Orthodox 
(Orth.  Eastern  Church,  pp.  388-390). 

2  See  the  quotations  in  Tournebize,  628-629. 

3  They  talk  great  nonsense  about  what  was  defined  in  1870  (Ormanian, 
P-  77)- 

4  Or  rather  some  of  their  theologians  have  (e.g.  Ormanian,  p.  86).  The 
Armenian  Church  officially  says  nothing  about  this,  but  condemns  all  who 
teach  two  natures  in  Christ  as  heretics ;  which  leaves  only  Monophysites. 

5  Ormanian,  pp.  76-77. 

6  Lord  Malachy  Ormanian  does  not  like  this  name,  and  wants  us  to  use 
"  Ughapar  "  (which  is  Armenian  for  "  Orthodox  ")  as  its  name  =  "  eglise 
oughapar  armenienne  "  (pp.  12c— 121).  There  is  no  pleasing  some  people. 
We  let  them  have  the  glorious  name  of  a  Catholic  apostle,  who  knew 
nothing  of  their  wretched  schism,  and  still  they  are  not  satisfied.  ' '  Ughapar ' ' 
is  absurd.  We  cannot  make  European  languages  into  a  kind  of  Esper- 
anto ;   "  Orthodox  "  is  already  in  use  for  another  church. 


428        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

archiepiscopal  sees,  nine  bishops'  sees,  one  abbey  "  nullius,"  and 
three  districts  under  vardapets  (p.  431)  in  Russia,  also  two 
archbishoprics  (Ispahan  and  Tabriz),  and  two  vardapets'  dis- 
tricts (Teheran  and  Hamadan)  in  Persia,  bishoprics  of  Calcutta, 
"  Europe,"  "  America,"  a  vardapet's  district  for  Java,  and  one 
at  Suczava  (for  Hungary  and  Bukovina).1  Outside  this  patriar- 
chate, notably  in  Turkey,  he  seems  to  exercise  little  real  authority 
(p.  422).  But  a  concerted  action  of  the  whole  Armenian  Church, 
a  national  synod  or  such  like,  could  only  be  undertaken  by  him. 
The  title  of  this  venerable  Pontiff  is,  "  the  Servant  of  God  N.N., 
Supreme  Patriarch 2  and  Katholikos  of  all  the  Armenians." 
Formerly  he  was  elected  freely  by  his  synod  of  auxiliary  bishops 
Since  1878  the  Russian  Government  has  forced  on  the  Armenians 
a  new  system,  by  which  a  body  consisting  of  the  synod,  the 
monks  of  Etshmiadzin,  one  priest,  and  one  layman  from  each 
Armenian  see  in  Russia,  Turkey  and  Persia  elect  two  candidates, 
of  whom  the  Czar  appoints  one.3  The  Katholikos  is  always 
already  a  bishop.  Nevertheless,  he  is  solemnly  ordained  Katho- 
likos 4  in  a  service  in  which  the  holy  Atsh  (p.  416)  is  laid  upon  his 
head  ;  there  is  also  a  real  imposition  of  hands  and  anointing  with 
chrism  by  twelve  bishops.  His  Holiness  lives  in  the  large  and 
splendid  monastery  at  Etshmiadzin  ; 5  he  is  assisted  by  a  synod 
of  seven  auxiliary  bishops,6  and  by  many  committees  and  secre- 

1  See  the  complete  list  in  Ormanian,  187-189. 

2  "  Patriarch  "  in  Armenian  is  "  Hayrapet."  They  call  him  familiarly 
"  Hayrik  (little  father)." 

3  Silbernagl :    Verfassung,  u.s.w.  218-219. 

4  But  see  p.  440,  n.  4.  Ormanian  is  rather  proud  of  this  astonishing 
reordination  (op.  cit.  131). 

5  An  exact  description  of  the  four  churches  and  many  other  buildings 
at  Etshmiadzin  will  be  found  in  Lynch  :  Armenia,  i.  229-276.  The 
churches  are  :  1,  the  Cathedral  (see  fig.  and  plan,  pp.  429  and  433).  Its 
central  altar  marks  the  place  where  the  Only-begotten  struck  the  earth 
with  a  golden  hammer  (p.  398).  2,  St.  Hripsime  (see  frontispiece)  ;  3,  St. 
Gaiane  ;    4,  Shoghakath  ("  Effusion  of  Light  "). 

6  The  Russian  Government  names  these  and  keeps  a  spy  at  Etshmiadzin 
to  control  what  they  do.  The  Patriarch  cannot  do  anything  to  the  mem- 
bers of  his  synod  without  the  Czar's  consent.  All  synodical  acts  must 
begin  :  "  By  order  of  the  Czar  "  (Lynch,  loc.  cit.).  The  old  rule  was  that 
the  Katholikos  had  twelve  bishops  around  him  (see  p.  402,  and  Faustus,  vi. 
5,  in  Langlois,  i.  308).  Gelzer  says  there  are  now  only  five  (Die  Anfange, 
u.s.w.  146)  ;   Lynch  says  seven  (loc.  cit). 


THE  ARMENIAN   CHURCH   TO-DAY 


429 


430        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

taries.1  Over  his  vestments  (p.  436)  he  wears  a  diamond  pectoral 
cross  given  to  him  by  the  Czar.  He  would  gladly  give  up  this 
ornament  to  be  free.  His  income  amounts  to  about  £8000  a 
year.  The  present  Katholikos  of  all  the  Armenians  is  Lord 
Matthew  II  (Izmirlian),  formerly  Patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
who  succeeded  in  1909. 2 

The  Patriarchs  of  Sis  and  Aghthamar  (elected  by  local  assem- 
blies, half  clerical,  half  lay)  are  also  called  Katholikos.  By  a 
curious  modification  of  idea  the  Armenians  now  look  upon  this 
title  as  meaning  something  more  than  a  mere  Patriarch.  Origin- 
ally it  meant  very  much  less.  These  two  and  the  Supreme 
Patriarch  alone  may  bless  the  holy  chrism  and  ordain  bishops. 
At  Sis  reigns  "  The  Servant  of  God,  Patriarch  and  Katholikos  of 
Lesser  Armenia  and  of  the  Armenians  in  Cilicia,  Syria  and 
Palestine,3  minister  of  the  right  hand  and  throne  of  St.  Gregory 
the  Illuminator/'  Under  him  are  two  archbishoprics,  ten  bishop- 
rics, and  two  abbacies  "  nullius,"  all  in  Asia  Minor  and  North 
Syria.4  The  Katholikos  of  Aghthamar  is  really  only  a  titular 
Patriarch.5  He  has  one  bishopric  near  Lake  Van  under  him. 
The  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople  and  Jerusalem  (both  elected 
by  the  National  Assembly  at  Constantinople,  chiefly  lay)  do  not 
bear  the  title  Katholikos  ;  they  must  ask  the  Supreme  Katho- 
likos for  the  holy  chrism,  and  send  bishops  they  appoint  to  him 
for  ordination.  In  spite  of  that,  the  Armenian  Patriarch  of  Con- 
stantinople is  the  second  greatest  prelate  in  his  Church.  He  rules 
eleven  archbishoprics,  twenty-seven  bishoprics,  one  vardapet's 
district  and  six  abbacies  in  the  Turkish  Empire,  archiepiscopal 
sees  of  Egypt,  Bulgaria  and  Rumania,  vardapets'  districts  of 
Greece  and  Cyprus.6  The  Armenian  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem  lives 
at  the  great  monastery  of  St.  James  (Srbotz  Hakobiantz),  which 

1  At  Etshmiadzin  they  have  a  printing-press,  a  theological  college 
(founded  in  1873),  a  library,  and  a  large  hospice  for  pilgrims.  Certain  rich 
Armenian  merchants  are  giving  considerable  sums  of  money  to  rebuild  the 
monastery  and  palace  of  the  Katholikos. 

2  An  account  of  his  consecration  as  Katholikos  from  the  Times  is  re- 
printed in  Archdeacon  Bowling  :    The  Armenian  Church,  p.  36. 

3  Mere  title.     Jerusalem  is  over  Palestine  (p.  431). 

4  Ormanian,  186-187. 

6  Except  that  he  for  his  little  district  may  bless  chrism  and  ordain. 
6  Ormanian  :   op.  cit.  1 81-185. 


THE  ARMENIAN   CHURCH   TO-DAY        431 

is  the  centre  of  their  colony  there.  He  has  no  suffragan  bishops, 
but  three  vardapets'  districts — Jaffa,  Damascus,  Beirut.1  The 
Armenians  have  altars  and  rights  in  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  at  Beth- 
lehem, and  so  on. 

The  difference  between  an  archbishop  and  a  bishop  is  merely 
titular.  They  have  no  metropolitan  provinces  underthe  Patriarchs. 
All  bishops  must  be  celibate.2  In  Turkey  they  are  elected  by  the 
diocesan  assemblies,  composed  of  more  laymen  than  clergy.  The 
Russians  will  not  allow  this  ;  3  there  the  Czar  appoints  one  or 
two  candidates  presented  by  the  Katholikos.  There  are  two 
orders  of  priests,  as  in  all  Eastern  Churches — celibate  monastic 
priests,  and  secular  priests  who  marry  once  (apparently  they  must 
marry)  before  ordination.  The  monastic  priests  form  the  higher 
order.  They  only  may  become  vardapets.  The  Armenian 
Vardapet  puzzles  people.  Writers  constantly  repeat  that  it 
corresponds  to  a  Doctor  of  Theology :  4  really  it  is  something 
totally  different.  It  is  a  rank  in  the  hierarchy,  conferred  on  a 
(celibate)  priest  by  what  looks  exactly  like  a  new  ordination  ; 
it  confers  new  ecclesiastical  rights  and  duties.5  Before  being 
ordained  vardapet  a  priest  must  pass  an  ordination  examination  ; 
he  receives  a  special  delegation  to  preach  and  a  pastoral  staff.6 
He  alone  can  aspire  to  bishoprics  and  higher  offices. 7  Sometimes 
a  vardapet  is  made  head  of  a  quasi-diocesan  district  (as  above 
p.  428).  He  then  has  episcopal  jurisdiction  (like  our  vicars 
apostolic,  who  are  not  bishops),  and  he  is  called  Aratshnord 
(prelate).     There  are  many  monasteries,  recruiting  grounds  for 


1  Ormanian :  op.  cit.  185. 

2  We  saw  that  once  Armenian  bishops  were  married.  The  celibacy  of 
the  higher  clergy  became  a  law  in  Sahak  I's  reform  (p.  408). 

3  The  Russian  Government  does  not  like  elections,  rights  of  majorities, 
and  so  on.  They  prevent  all  popular  and  lay  influence  in  the  Armenian 
Church  in  Russia. 

4  So  Ormanian,  1 09-1 10. 

5  A  doctorate  of  theology  is  merely  a  testimonial  of  proficiency  given  by 
any  university  which  has  a  theological  faculty  to  anyone.  It  is  not  an 
ecclesiastical  rank  at  all.     A  layman  may  take  it. 

6  Hence  the  confusion  with  a  Doctor  (who  by  his  title  would  be  supposed 
to  teach) .  Other  priests  do  actually  preach  now,  by  a  kind  of  concession  ; 
but  they  have  no  staff. 

7  There  are  a  higher  and  a  lower  class  of  vardapets. 


432        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

vardapets.  Only  the  monastic  clergy  now  have  deacons.1  The 
married  secular  clergy  are  poor  folk,  having  little  training  and  no 
hope  of  advancement.  The  priesthood  often  descends  from  father 
to  son  through  many  generations.2  Except  in  Russia  (where  the 
Government  will  not  allow  it)  the  laity  has  great  influence  in 
Church  matters,  and  forms  councils  to  administer  Church  property. 
Of  three  to  four  million  Armenians,  perhaps  three-quarters  belong 
to  the  Gregorian  Church.  She  is  not  strictly  in  communion  with 
even  the  other  Monophysite  Churches,  and  never  has  been.3  But 
the  relations  between  them  are  friendly,  and  Armenians  are  care- 
less about  giving  and  receiving  Communion  from  other  people.4 

3.  Churches  and  Vestments 

An  Armenian  Church  has  a  marked  character,  both  inside  and 
outside,  by  which  it  may  easily  be  distinguished  from  any  other. 
It  generally  has  a  dome  in  the  centre,5  which  is  not  a  dome  out- 
side, but  a  low  round  tower  with  a  conical  roof.  In  front  of  the 
larger  churches  is  an  atrium,  an  open  court,  around  which  are 
the  priests'  lodgings,  the  school,  rooms  for  parochial  business,  and 
so  on.  Inside  there  is  no  ikonostasion.  Perhaps  it  is  more 
exact  to  say  that  the  altar  stands  in  front  of  the  ikonostasion. 
Across  the  far  east  end  there  is  a  high  screen,  sometimes  covered 

1  Ormanian,  127.  Armenian  catechisms  still  give  seven  orders  (exactly 
ours,  clearly  through  Latin  influence).  See  e.g.  the  Instruction  in  the 
Christian  Faith  (Occas.  Paper  of  the  Eastern  Church  Assoc,  viii. ;  Rivingtons, 
1869),  p.  26.  If  I  understand  Ormanian  rightly,  these  (except  priesthood) 
are  now  only  given  to  monks.  The  deacon  who  serves  in  the  liturgy  is  in 
most  cases  a  priest.     There  are  a  few  Gregorian  Armenian  nunneries. 

2  Ormanian  gives  the  total  number  of  Armenian  clergy  as  :  married, 
four  thousand  ;    celibate,  four  hundred  {op.  cit.  1 30-1 31). 

3  Occasional  friendly  relations  are  noted  with  surprise  and  delight.  Michael 
the  Syrian  is  very  pleased  that  the  Armenian  Katholikos,  Gregory  IV 
(11 73-1 193),  sent  a  profession  of  his  Monophysite  faith  to  the  Jacobite 
Patriarch  (ed.  Chabot,  ii.  492-500).  On  the  other  hand,  Gregory  III  (1113- 
1166)  cursed  Jacobites  roundly,  and  they  cursed  back. 

4  The  late  Bishop  of  Salisbury  (John  Wordsworth)  boasts  that  once  an 
Armenian  priest  received  Communion  from  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury 
(in  Wigram  :  Doctr.  Position  of  the  Assyrian  Church,  p.  19).  The  fact 
is  equally  disgraceful  to  both  parties;  for  the  Archbishop  had  no  busi- 
ness to  give  communion  to  a  Monophysite,  and  the  Armenian  had  no 
business  to  receive  it  from  a  Protestant. 

5  At  the  crossing  of  the  transept,  if  it  has  one. 


THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH   TO-DAY 


433 


with  pictures  ;  but  in 
be)  stands  the  altar. 
On  either  side  of  the 
altar  is  a  small  door 
leading    to    a    space 
behind,    used    as    a 
sacristy.    In  front  of 
the   altar   is    a    low 
Communion  rail,  then 
the  choir,  another  low 
rail,  the  men's  part, 
and  the  women's  part 
at  the  back.     Larger 
churches  have  a  nar- 
thex.1  The  baptistery 
with    the    font 
generally  forms 
a  chapel  on  the 
south  side.  The 
altar  looks  like 
a  very  bad  Latin 
altar.  It  has  a  retable 
of     three,     four,     or 
even     five     degrees, 
like    steps,    behind. 
In  the  middle  above 
stands  a  cross  (often 
in  front  of  a  picture) . 
The  mensa  of  the  al- 
tar is  a  narrow  shelf. 
All  is   covered   with 
gaudy     cloths     and 
white      altar  -  cloths 
with  lace.   Then  they 


the  middle  (where  the  royal  doors  would 


FIG.   1 6.- 


-PLAN  OF  THE  PATRIARCHAL  CHURCH 
AT  ETSHMIADZIN. 


A,  Main  altar  outside  the  Ikonostasion  (where  Christ 
struck  the  ground) ;  B,  Altar  in  the  sanctuary ;  C,  C,  Side 
altars  ;  D,  Porch. 


pile  on  their  altar  and  retable  a  very  curious  collection  of  objects. 
There  are  many  candles,  books  showing  their  ornamental  bind- 

1  Neale  (Hist,  of  the  Holy  Eastern  Church,  Part  i.  Book  ii.  chap.  8),  gives 
an  account  of  "  Armenian  ecclesiology,"  not  very  accurate. 


434        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

ings,the  liturgical  fans  with  bells  (p.  441),  relics,  the  chalice-veil, 
perhaps  a  huge  mitre  (p.  436).  All  these  show  their  gilding  and 
finery,  so  that  one  wonders  where  the  celebrant  can  find  room  to 
celebrate.1  The  impression  of  the  whole  is  like  that  of  a  Baroc 
Latin  altar,  but  more  full  of  bad  ornament.  Sometimes  there  is 
a  tabernacle  on  the  altar,  but  they  do  not  make  much  of  it  (p.  440) . 
Lamps  and  ostrich-eggs  (p.  270)  hang  in  front.  They  always  have 
two  rods  with  curtains  before  the  altar,  a  small  curtain  near  it, 
drawn  during  the  celebrant's  Communion,  and  a  large  curtain 
(hiding  the  whole  sanctuary)  drawn  at  other  times  in  the  liturgy, 
and  kept  always  drawn  throughout  Lent.2 

Armenian  vestments  are  the  usual  Eastern  ones,  Latinized  in 
some  particulars.  All  ministers  wear  an  amice  (varkas),  with  a 
broad  apparel  which  stands  up  and  forms  a  high  collar  round  the 
neck.  This  varkas  is  put  on  after,  and  worn  above  the  tunic. 
Armenians  will  not  admit  that  it  is  an  amice  at  all ;  they  compare 
it  to  our  humeral  veil.3  The  deacon  has  a  tunic  (o-Toixaptov, 
shapik)  of  any  colour  ;  it  may  be  of  silk  or  velvet.4  Over  this 
comes  the  deacon's  stole  (urar)  from  the  left  shoulder,  sometimes 
wound  under  the  right  arm.  The  priest  has  the  amice,  shapik,  a 
girdle  (goti),  and  his  stole  (porurar),  which  is  a  broad  piece  of 
stuff  hanging  down  in  front  with  a  loop  for  the  head  (as  p.  273). 
He  wears  the  Byzantine  egimanikia  (bazpan).  During  the  holy 
liturgy  he  wears  a  phamolipn  (shurtshar),  now  just  like  our 
cope  without  a  hood.  Since  bishops  adopted  the  Roman  mitre 
every  priest  uses  the  Byzantine  crown   (saghavart) 5  when  he 

1  But  a  space  is  cleared  for  the  holy  liturgy. 

2  A  few  Byzantinized  churches  (including,  oddly  enough,  Etshmiadzin) 
have  an  ikonostasion  in  front  of  the  sanctuary.  There  is,  normally,  only 
one  altar,  with  credence  tables  right  and  left.  But  some  large  churches 
have  real  side  altars,  used  occasionally  on  feasts  (Ormanian  :  op.  cit.  125). 
Etshmiadzin  has  four  (fig.  16,  p.  433). 

3  In  modern  times  the  deacon  and  clerks  below  him  wear,  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  the  varkas  and  its  apparel,  a  little  cape  down  to  the  elbows. 
See  the  picture  in  Braun  :  Liturgische  Gewandung  (Freiburg :  Herder,  1907), 
p.  93.     Ormanian  says  this  is  contrary  to  rule  {op.  cit.  p.  127). 

4  Clerks  below  the  deacon  and  singers  wear  the  shapik  and  cape  only,  no 
epitrachelion. 

5  This  crown  is  often  a  very  modest  bonnet  of  silk  with  some  gold  braid . 
The  deacon  too  wears  it  when  he  attends  on  a  bishop  (in  Braun  :  op.  cit. 
93,  the  deacon  wears  a  crown). 


THE   ARMENIAN  CHURCH   TO-DAY 


435 


celebrates.     In  choir  he  has  another  cloak,  the  mandyas  (called 
pilon).1     A  pectoral  cross  is  often  granted  to  simple  priests  and 


FIG.   17. THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH  OF  ST.  JAMES  AT  JERUSALEM. 

vardapets.     The  bishop  adds  to  a   priest's  vestments  a   large 

omophorion  (emiphoron).     Since  the  Latinizing  days  of  Cilician 

1   Urar  is  wpdptov  and  pilon  is  <pai\6vi0y  (see  p.  273,  n.  3,  for  this  spelling). 


436        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Armenia  bishops  have  adopted  the  Latin  mitre  x  and  crozier  and 
ring.  Some  bishops  wear  a  rationale  of  metal  attached  to  the 
amice,  and  worn  on  the  breast.2  The  bishop  also  has  a  medal  of 
our  Lady  holding  our  Lord,  called  panague  (from  iravayta,  it  is 
the  Byzantine  enkolpion).  He  holds  a  little  hand-cross  with 
which  to  bless.  The  Katholikos  and  some  important  bishops 
wear  an  epigonation  3  (konker).  At  the  Katholikos'  consecration 
his  head  is  covered  with  a  great  veil  (kogh).  This  is  carried 
before  him  in  procession  on  great  days.  Vardapets  wear  priests' 
vestments  and  crown.  The  sign  of  their  office,  given  to  them  at 
ordination,  which  they  hold  when  they  preach,  is  a  staff  (gavazan), 
which  is  exactly  that  of  Byzantine  bishops,  with  two  entwined 
serpents  looking  towards  a  ball  and  cross.  The  vardapet  with 
his  crown  and  staff  might  easily  be  mistaken  for  a  Byzantine 
bishop.  If  he  is  an  aratshnord  (p.  431)  and  administers  a  diocese, 
he  has  a  bishop's  (Latin)  mitre  and  crozier. 

Out  of  church  the  distinctive  mark  of  the  Armenian  clergy  is 
their  black  cap  (pakegh).  This  is  lower  than  the  kan^el^ukion, 
and  comes  to  a  point  at  the  top.4  All  wear  this,  but  only  the 
celibate  priests  and  higher  clergy  may  cover  it  with  a  large 
black  veil  (veghar)  which  hangs  down  behind.  Priests  wear  a 
cassock  (generally  black)  and  a  black  cloak  with  sleeves,  called 
verarku.  We  have  mentioned  the  mandyas  (pilon).  This,  with 
the  cap  (pakegh),  is  the  usual  choir  dress.  Priests  wear  a  black 
pilon  ;  higher  vardapets  and  bishops  one  of  violet  silk.5  Arch- 
bishops, Patriarchs  and  Katholikoi  have  a  kind  of  heraldic 
emblem  of  their  diocese  on  a  rod.  When  they  go  in  procession, 
incense  the  church,  and  so  on,  four  standards  are  borne  before 

1  Armenian  mitres  are  colossal,  higher  and  worse  decorated  than  the 
worst  18th-century  mitres  in  the  West.  There  is  later  copying  here.  In 
the  12th  century,  when  Leo  II  of  Armenia  was  crowned  (p.  389),  certainly 
the  Latin  bishops  he  saw  did  not  wear  these  portentous  high  mitres. 

2  Apparently  only  privileged  bishops.  For  the  rationale  see  J.  Braun  : 
Die  Liturgische  Gewandung,  pp.  676—700. 

3  Orth.  Eastern  Church,  p.  406. 

4  Its  shape  is  just  that  of  the  towers  which  cover  their  church  domes. 

5  Armenian  vestments  are  described  by  Tournebize  (op.  cit.  601,  603,  etc.), 
Ormanian  (127-132),  and  by  J.  Braun  (Die  Liturg.  Gewandung),  together 
with  those  of  all  rites,  under  each  heading  (see  the  priest — he  is  a  vardapet 
— P-  235)-  A.  J.  Butler  also  describes  them  in  his  Ancient  Coptic  Churches, 
vol.  ii.  chaps,  iv.-v. 


THE   ARMENIAN   CHURCH   TO-DAY        437 

them :  a  cross,  this  emblem,  their  crozier  and  vardapet's  staff. 
While  they  celebrate  servers  stand  around  holding  these.1  Arme- 
nians have  no  liturgical  colours,  except  black  for  funerals. 


4.  The  Calendar,  Books  and  Services 

The  Armenians  have  a  national  reckoning  from  Haik  (b.c. 
2492),  and  a  disused  ecclesiastical  reckoning.  They  now  all  use 
the  Julian  Calendar,  like  the  Ortho- 
dox. The  salient  fact  in  their  year 
is  that  they  have  no  Christmas,2  or, 
rather,  that  they  keep  the  memory 
of  our  Lord's  birth  with  the  other 
manifestations  on  the  Epiphany 
(Hainuthiun,  January  6).  There  is 
no  great  mystery  about  this.  Christ- 
mas (December  25)  is  in  origin  a 
Western  feast,  which  was  not  intro- 
duced into  the  East  till  the  4th 
century.3  Armenia  is  the  one  country 
where  it  was  never  introduced.  Now 
this  unique  peculiarity  has  become  a 
kind  of  national  privilege  of  which 
Armenians  are  proud,  whereas  their 
opponents  have  sometimes  counted 
it  among  their  heresies.    Both  points 

of  view  seem  equally  absurd.  Most  of  their  feasts  are  dated,  not  by 
a  day  of  the  month,  but  by  a  day  of  a  week  after  a  certain  Sunday 
dependent  on  Easter,  which  greatly  simplifies  the  calendar.  They 
distinguish ' '  Feasts  of  the  Lord  "  4  (Epiphany,  Holy  Week,  Easter, 
Ascension,  Pentecost,  Transfiguration  on  the  seventh  Sunday 
after  Pentecost,  falling-asleep  of  the  Holy  Theotokos  on  the 
nearest  Sunday  to  August  15,  Candlemas  on  February  14,5  Lady 
Day  on  April  7,6  the  Birth  of  the  Holy  Virgin,  her  Presentation 

1  For  the  emblem  of  the  late  Katholikos  see  Lynch  :   Armenia,  i.  252. 

2  This  is  unique  among  old  Churches  now. 

3  Cf.  Kellner  :    Heortologie  (Freiburg,  1901),  pp.  82-86. 

4  In  which  those  of  the  blessed  Virgin  are  included. 

5  Quite  rightly  ;    forty  days  after  their  Christmas-Epiphany. 

6  The  same  idea  ;   nine  months  before  January  6. 


FIG.    18. ARMENIAN  BISHOP 

AND  VARDAPET. 


438    THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

on  November  21,  her  Conception  on  December  9,  two  Holy  Rood 
days,  the  memory  of  various  apparitions  of  our  Lord  and  feasts 
of  the  Church),1  and  saints'  days,  of  which  they  have  a  great 
number,  including  many  Armenian  saints.2  A  good  idea  of  the 
Armenian  Church  is  special  feasts  in  memory  of  the  Councils  of 
Nicaa  (Saturday  after  the  third  Sunday  after  the  Dormitio 
B.M.V.),3  Constantinople  I  (Saturday  after  Sexagesima),  and 
Ephesus  (Saturday  after  the  fourth  Sunday  after  Transfiguration).4 
Their  Lent  (Karasnortk)  lasts  forty-eight  days  before  Easter  ;  the 
week  after  the  tenth  Sunday  before  Easter  is  a  fast  (called  Arat- 
shavoratz),5  also  seven  days  before  the  Epiphany,  Whitsunday, 
Transfiguration,  Assumption,  Exaltation  of  Holy  Rood  (Sunday 
between  September  n  and  17),  and  before  the  first  Sunday  after 
Pentecost  (the  fast  of  Elias).  Every  Wednesday  and  Friday  is 
a  day  of  abstinence.6  Altogether  they  have  160  fast-days,  and 
117  abstinence-days  in  the  year.  The  prayers  on  these  days  are 
of  penitence  and  for  the  dead.7 

All  Armenian  services  are  in  classical  Armenian .  Except  Amen , 
Alleluia,  Orthi,  Proschumen,  everything  is  in  that  language. 
"  Kyrie  eleison  "  becomes  "  Ter  oghormia,"  which  the  people  cry 
out  incessantly.  Their  liturgical  books  (under  Latin  influence) 
are  the  clearest  and  best  arranged  of  any  among  Eastern  Churches. 
They  have  eight :  (1)  The  Directory  or  Calendar  (Donatsoitz), 
corresponding  to  the  Byzantine  Typikon  ;  (2)  Liturgy,8  containing 

1  See  Ormanian  :   op.  cit.  1 39-141. 

2  lb.  143-149. 

3  The  Byzantine  Calendar  has  this  on  Sunday  after  Ascension,  the 
Jacobites  on  May  29,  Copts  on  November  9. 

4  Coptic,  September  12.  The  idea  of  a  feast  in  memory  of  a  General 
Council  is  common  in  Eastern  Churches.  On  the  first  Sunday  of  July  the 
Byzantines  keep  "  the  holy  fathers  of  the  Six  (Ecumenic  Synods."  We 
could  spare  several  of  our  feasts  for  such  a  memory  as  this. 

5  The  fast  of  Nineveh  (cf.  p.  287). 

6  Except  in  the  Epiphany  octave  and  Paschal  time. 

7  More  about  the  Calendar  in  Ormanian,  pp.  136-149  ;  Nilles  :  Kalen- 
darium  manuale,  ii.  554-636.  The  present  custom  is  to  keep  the  strict 
fast  (dzuom,  no  food  at  all  from  sunrise  till  3  p.m.),  only  during  the  arat- 
shavoratz  and  Lent.  Other  fast-days  are  only  really  days  of  abstinence 
(bahkh,  which  forbids  flesh-meat,  fish,  lacticinia,  wine  and  oil).  But  for 
this,  too,  moderating  dispensations  can  be  obtained.  The  actual  vigil  of  a 
feast  has  a  mild  abstinence  (navagadikh)  which  forbids  only  flesh-meat. 

8  Badarakamadoitz,  or  Korhrtadedr  (book  of  the  oblation). 


THE  ARMENIAN   CHURCH   TO-DAY         439 

normally  only  the  celebrant's  part  and  sometimes  the  diakonika  ; 
(3)  Lectionary,  with  other  parts  said  by  the  deacon  and  servers 
(Djashots)  ;x  (4)  Book  of  Ordinations,  often  bound  up  with  the 
Liturgy  ;  (5)  Hymn-book  (Dagharan) ,  containing  the  hymns  sung 
by  the  choir  during  the  liturgy;  (6)  Book  of  Hours  (Jamakirkh), 
containing  the  Divine  office 2  and  often  the  diakonika  of  the 
Liturgy;  (7)  Canticle-book  (Sharagan),  the  hymns  sung  in  the 
Office;  (8)  Ritual  (Mashdotz),  containing  baptism,  other  sacra- 
ments and  sacramentals.3  Their  Bible  contains  the  Deutero- 
canonical  books  and  some  apocrypha.4 

The  Divine  Office  has  the  usual  Byzantine  hours  and  consists, 
as  in  all  Eastern  Churches,  of  psalms,  hymns,  lessons,  prayers 
and  litanies.  The  only  part  of  it  at  which  the  laity  usually  assist 
is  Vespers  on  Saturday  evening  and  the  eve  of  Feasts.  I  believe 
the  office  is  said  complete  only  by  monks.5  A  detail  of  Latin 
influence  is  that  Armenians  sing  the  Magnificat  at  Vespers.6  The 
administration  of  Sacraments  follows  the  normal  Eastern  lines, 
with  traces  of  Latinization.  At  Baptism  the  child  is  made  to 
stand  in  the  water  of  the  font  facing  the  East ;  the  priest  pours 
water  over  its  head  thrice,  saying :  "  N.,  servant  of  God,  coming 
by  his  own  will  to  the  state  of  catechumen  and  thence  to  that  of 
baptism,  is  now  baptized  by  me  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of 
the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  He  confirms  it  at  once,  anoint- 
ing it  with  chrism  on  each  organ  and  on  the  hands,  heart,  back  and 
feet,  with  suitable  forms.  The  child  receives  Holy  Communion  at 
once.  If  possible,  it  is  baptized  immediately  after  the  liturgy.  In 
this  case  a  little  of  the  consecrated  wine  is  kept ;  the  priest  dips  his 
finger  in  that  and  so  puts  a  drop  in  the  child's  mouth.     Otherwise 

1  Besides  the  Biblical  lessons  they  have  the  Aismavurkh  (Synaxarion) 
and  Djarrendir  (Homilies)  used  in  the  office. 

2  Very  nearly  a  breviary.  The  Uniates  have  a  complete  breviary 
called  Jamagavkuthiun. 

3  Our  Rituale.  There  are  many  editions  of  the  Armenian  service  books, 
both  Gregorian  and  Uniate.  Gregorian  editions  are  published  at  Etsh- 
miadzin,  Constantinople,  Jerusalem.  Dr.  James  Issaverdens  has  translated 
parts  of  the  (Uniate)  books  under  the  title  :  The  Armenian  Ritual  (3  parts), 
Venice:  S.  Lazzaro,  1873-1888. 

4  Archdeacon  Dowling  gives  a  list  :   op.  cit.  104-112. 

5  A  note  about  the  Armenian  Office  will  be  found  in  Tournebize  :  op.  cit. 
636-637. 

6  Its  usual  place  in  Eastern  rites  is  in  the  Orthros. 


440        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

he  merely  touches  its  lips  with  the  reserved  (intincted)  form  of 
bread.  People  are  supposed  to  go  to  Communion  (and  Confession) 
five  times  a  year — at  the  Epiphany,  Easter,  Falling-asleep  of  our 
Lady,  Transfiguration  and  Exaltation  of  Holy  Rood.  Com- 
munion is  administered  to  lay  people  by  intinctio'n.  The  priest 
puts  the  holy  bread,  dipped  in  the  chalice,  on  their  tongue,  say- 
ing :  "  The  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ 
be  to  thee  for  salvation  and  for  a  guide  to  eternal  life."  1  Whoever 
goes  to  Communion  must  be  fasting  since  he  went  to  bed  the 
night  before,  and  in  a  state  of  grace.  Married  priests  live  celibate 
for  several  days  before  celebrating.  They  reserve  the  Holy 
Eucharist  (intincted)  in  a  tabernacle  either  on  the  altar  or  behind 
it.  A  lamp  burns  before  the  tabernacle  ;  but  they  do  not  show 
much  other  external  reverence  to  the  Real  Presence.  Ordination 
is  giving  by  imposition  of  hands  with  long  and  very  definite  forms.2 
The  ordained  is  anointed  with  chrism  3  and  receives  his  vestments 
from  the  ordainer.  We  have  already  noted  that  only  a  Katho- 
likos  may  ordain  bishops  (p.  430),  and  that  they  have  special 
ordinations  for  a  Katholikos 4  and  vardapet  (pp.  428,  431). 
Married  people  are  crowned,  as  in  the  Byzantine  rite.  The  anoint- 
ing of  the  sick,  though  taught  as  a  Sacrament  in  their  books,  is  no 
longer  practised  by  the  Gregorian s  (p.  426).  Instead,  they  have 
a  service  of  prayers  only.5  Only  a  Katholikos  may  bless  the  holy 
chrism  (meron).  This  is  done  with  great  solemnity  every  three 
or  four  years  ;  all  the  other  bishops  send  for  some  of  it.6  Like 
the  Byzantine  chrism,  it  contains  a  great  quantity  of  ingredients. 

1  Brightman  :  Eastern  Liturgies,  p.  452.  Priests  who  assist  receive 
either  kind  separately  (the  deacon  receives  as  do  the  laity).  They  have 
no  spoon  for  Communion. 

2  Quoted  in  Tournebize  :   op.  cit.  pp.  600  (priest),  605  (bishop),  etc. 

3  Only  priests,  bishops,  katholikos. 

4  Lynch  describes  the  consecration  of  the  late  Katholikos,  Mekertich 
Khrimean,  which  he  saw  at  Etshmiadzin  on  October  8,  1893  (Armenia,  i. 
251-256).  At  the  banquet  which  followed  they  had  first  to  drink  the 
health  of  the  tyrant  who  persecutes  them. 

5  Descriptions  of  the  Armenian  rites  for  the  Sacraments  will  be  found 
in  Tournebize  :  op.  cit.  575-618  ;  Issaverdens  :  The  Armenian  Ritual 
(iii.  "The  Ordinal,"  1875  ;  iv.  "The  Sacred  Rites  and  Ceremonies,"  1888) ; 
Dowling:  The  Armenian  Church,  112-137. 

6  As  with  the  Orthodox,  to  apply  for  chrism  to  a  Patriarch  is  a  sign  of 
recognizing  his  authority. 


THE  ARMENIAN   CHURCH   TO-DAY      441 

Some  of  the  old  chrism  is  put  into  the  new.  This  is  supposed  to 
perpetuate  the  original  holy  oil  blessed  by  our  Lord  himself,  and 
brought  to  Armenia  by  the  Apostles.1  Armenians  make  holy 
water  by  dipping  a  cross  or  relic  into  water.  They  have  a  blessing 
of  waters  at  the  Epiphany,  and  many  special  ceremonies  through- 
out the  year.  They  are  great  at  processions.  They  make  the 
sign  of  the  cross  (alone  among  Easterns)  in  the  Latin  manner. 

Their  music  is  of  the  usual  Eastern  type,  strange  to  us.  They 
accompany  their  singing  with  little  bells  around  the  fans  (p«ri'8ia, 
kshotz),  no  longer  used  for  their  original  purpose,  but  held  in 
church  by  servers,  who  shake  them  like  a  sistrum.  They  also 
clash  cymbals  (dzndzgha),  and  blow  horns  and  wind  instruments.2 

An  ancient  Armenian  abuse  is  the  sacrifice  of  beasts  (madagh). 
This  was  a  constant  reproach  against  them  during  the  Middle 
Ages.  A  bull,  cow,  sheep,  or  fowl  is  brought  to  church  in  pro- 
cession ;  a  chapter  of  the  Bible  is  read,  salt  is  put  in  its  mouth 
and  it  is  killed,  then  divided  as  a  feast.  The  bishops  try  to  put 
down  this  piece  of  paganism,  or  to  turn  it  into  a  mere  feast.3 


5.  The  Holy  Liturgy 

The  Eucharistic  service  gives  an  exact  picture  of  the  history 
of  the  Armenian  Church  ;  for  in  all  essential  points  it  is  simply 
the  Byzantine  rite  in  Armenian  ; 4  it  has  some  traces  of  Syrian 
influence  and  many  notable  Latin  additions.  It  is  not,  of  course, 
derived  from  Constantinople,  but  from  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia, 
where  the  Byzantine  rite  was  first  formed.5  The  Armenians  have 
three  very  remarkable  peculiarities.  First,  alone  among  Eastern 
Churches,  they  have  only  one  Liturgy  and  only  one  Anaphora. 

1  Ormanian  says  :  "If  the  fact  is  not  proved  historically,  people  will 
agree  nevertheless  that  it  does  not  fail  to  be  significant"  (op.  cit.  105), 
which  is  exactly  right  and  very  well  expressed. 

2  The  melodies  are  written  out  (made  chromatic),  by  P.  Bianchini : 
Les  chants  liturgiques  de  I'Eglise  armenienne  (Venice:  S.  Lazzaro,  1877). 

3  For  the  madagh  see  Tournebize  :   op.  cit.  588-593. 

4  So  that  Brightman  classes  it  simply  as  a  variant  of  the  Byzantine  rite 
(Eastern  Liturgies,  p.  xcvi). 

5  See  The  Mass  (Longmans,  1912),  pp.  87-91.  It  is  the  older  Byzantine 
Liturgy  (St.  Basil)  to  which  we  must  look  for  the  parallel. 


442         THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

As  in  the  Latin  Church,  no  alternative  form  is  ever  used.1 
Secondly,  almost  alone  in  the  East,2  they  use  unleavened  bread. 
They  believe  this  to  be  an  original  national  custom.  It  is  cer- 
tainly a  Latin  infiltration.  Thirdly,  alone  of  all  old  Churches, 
they  mix  no  water  with  the  wine.3  The  liturgy  is  celebrated  on 
Sundays  and  feasts  only,  as  a  rule.  At  a  solemn  celebration  by 
a  high  prelate  there  may  be  as  many  as  six  deacons. 

The  celebrant  and  ministers  vest  in  the  sacristy  and  wash 
their  hands,  saying  psalms  and  prayers.  Meanwhile  the  choir 
sings  a  hymn.4  They  come  to  the  sanctuary  and  say  (Latinized) 
preparatory  prayers,  including  the  Iudica  psalm  (xliii.)  and  the 
Confiteor.  The  large  curtain  is  closed  and  they  prepare  the  bread 
and  wine  at  the  prothesis.  Only  one  loaf  is  used.  The  offertory 
is  made  at  this  point ;  the  gifts  are  covered.  Meanwhile  a  (vari- 
able) hymn  is  sung.  The  curtain  is  drawn  back,  the  celebrant 
incenses  the  altar  and  all  the  church.  Here  begins  the  Enarxis. 
A  hymn  is  sung  (generally  the  Monogenes)  ;  there  are  one  or  two 
prayers  and  another  hymn.  The  Liturgy  of  the  Catechumens 
begins  with  the  Trisagion.5  Then  the  (chief)  deacon  chants  a 
litany  (synapte)  of  the  usual  Byzantine  type  with  the  answer, 
"  Lord  have  mercy,"  to  each  clause.  There  are  three  lessons,  a 
'  Prophet/  6  '  Apostle '  and  Gospel ;  before  each  is  sung  a 
verse  (irpoKCL/jLevov) ,  the  one  before  the  Gospel  consisting  of 
Alleluia  twice  and  a  verse.  The  catechumens  are  not  formally 
dismissed.  At  once,  after  the  Gospel,  begins  the  Liturgy  of  the 
Faithful  with  the  Nicene  Creed,7  said  by  the  people  ;  the  celebrant 

1  Once  they  had  other  anaphoras,  "of  St.  Gregory  the  Illuminator,"  "of 
St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzos,"  "  of  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,"  "  of  St.  Sahak 
the  Great"  (p.  408).  See  Baumstark :  Die  Messe  im  Morgenland  (Samm- 
lung  Kosel,  1906),  p.  64.  They  have  no  liturgy  of  the  Presanctified.  On 
days  of  Lent  (except  Saturday  and  Sunday)  there  is  no  Eucharistic  service 
at  all. 

2  The  Maronites  are  the  only  other  Eastern  Church  which  uses  azyme. 

3  This  custom  is  said  to  have  begun  as  a  reaction  against  heretics 
(enkratites) ,  who  consecrated  only  water. 

4  These  hymns  (sharagan),  which  occur  repeatedly  during  the  liturgy, 
are  an  Armenian  speciality.  They  are  supposed  to  come  from  Syria  ; 
many  of  them  are  certainly  very  beautiful.  As  a  specimen  see  Brightman  : 
op.  cit.  412-414. 

6  With  the  so-called  Monophysite  clause  (which  varies  ;  see  p.  191,  n.  3). 
6  Any  Old  Test,  lesson.  7  Including  the  anathemas. 


THE  ARMENIAN   CHURCH   TO-DAY         443 

adds  :  "  But  we  will  glorify  him  who  was  before  all  worlds,  by 
worshipping  the  Holy  Trinity  and  one  Godhead  of  the  Father 
and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  now  and  for  ever,  world 
without  end.  Amen."  x  The  Prayers  of  the  Faithful  follow  in 
the  usual  litany  form  by  the  deacon.  Not  till  now  is  a  warning 
made  that  no  "  catechumens,  men  of  little  faith,  penitents,  or 
unclean,"  are  to  draw  nigh.  The  Great  Entrance  comes  here. 
The  large  curtain  is  drawn  for  a  moment  while  the  celebrant 
takes  off  his  crown  and  mitre.2  He  remains  at  the  altar  to  receive 
the  gifts  ;  the  deacon  or  deacons  go  to  fetch  them  from  the  pro- 
thesis.3  Here  occurs  the  strongest  case  of  dramatic  anticipation 
in  any  rite.  The  deacon  says  :  "  The  body  of  the  Lord  and  the 
blood  of  the  Saviour  lie  before  us.4  The  invisible  powers  sing 
unseen,  and  say  with  uninterrupted  voice  :  Holy,  holy,  holy, 
Lord  of  Hosts."  The  choir  sings  a  variable  hymn  called  the 
hagiology  (srbasathsuthiun) ,  one  form  of  which  is  a  version  of 
the  Greek  Cherubikon,  while  the  gifts  are  brought  to  the  altar 
in  solemn  procession,  with  lights,  incense  and  ringing  kshotz  (p. 
441).  They  are  placed  on  the  altar  and  incensed.  The  celebrant 
washes  his  hands,  saying  the  Lavabo  verse.  The  kiss  of  peace 
comes  here.  They  sing  another  and  almost  stronger  example  of 
anticipation  ("  Christ  has  been  manifested  among  us.  He  who 
is  God  has  seated  himself  here  ")  ;  the  deacon  warns  that  the 
doors  be  guarded,  and  the  Anaphora  begins,  almost  exactly  as  in 
the  Byzantine  rite  ("  Mercy  and  peace  and  a  sacrifice  of  praise," 
but  sung  by  the  choir).  The  deacon  says  :  "  Lift  up  your  minds 
with  divine  fear."  The  celebrant  begins  the  Anaphora  (silently) : 
"  It  is  meet  indeed  and  right  .  .  ."  ;   he  mentions  the  Seraphim 

1  A  pretty  legend  ascribes  these  words  to  St.  Gregory  the  Illuminator. 
He  was  old  in  325,  and  had  retired.  His  son  Aristakes  as  Primate  went  to 
Nicaea.  St.  Gregory  went  to  meet  him  on  his  return,  and  asked  what  the 
synod  had  defined.  Aristakes  repeated  the  Creed  ;  when  he  had  heard 
it  Gregory  said  these  words. 

2  A  bishop  takes  off  mitre,  omophorion,  cross,  ring,  remaining  in  priest's 
vestments  only. 

3  This  should  be  noted  as  an  Armenian  peculiarity. 

4  This  has  naturally  caused  great  scandal  to  other  Christians.  Bright- 
man  (p.  430)  gives  a  milder  translation  :  "  are  set  forth."  I  prefer,  as 
more  authentic,  that  of  a  Gregorian  Armenian  priest,  Asdvadzadouriants 
(op.  cit.  p.  444),  p.  65,  which  alone  explains  all  that  has  been  said  about 
this  text.     Uniates  say  :   "  are  about  to  lie  before  us." 


444        THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

and  Cherubim  aloud,1  and  the  choir  sings  the  Sanctus  and  Bene- 
dictus,  exactly  in  our  form.  Soon  after  come  the  words  of  In- 
stitution,2 Anamnesis  and  Epiklesis.  There  follows  the  great  Inter- 
cession, with  a  long  list  of  saints,  mostly  Armenian,  and  prayers 
for  the  dead.  The  deacon  at  the  right  of  the  altar  takes  up  this, 
and  to  each  clause  the  choir  answers  :  "  Remember,  O  Lord,  and 
have  mercy."  Another  synapte  by  the  deacon  follows,  and  the 
choir  sings  the  Lord's  Prayer.  The  celebrant  says  its  introduc- 
tion and  embolism.  There  is  then  an  elevation  (the  deacon  says 
in  Greek  :  "  Proschumen  "),  with  the  form  :  "  Unto  the  holiness 
of  the  holy,"  and  a  long  blessing.  The  small  curtain  is  closed 
and  the  celebrant  makes  the  fraction  in  four  parts,  of  which  he 
dips  three  into  the  chalice.  Before  his  Communion  he  kisses  the 
Blessed  Sacrament  and  says  :  "I  confess  and  I  believe  that  thou 
art  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  who  didst  bear  the  sins  of  the  world." 
He  adds  some  Communion  prayers  and  receives  Communion  under 
separate  kinds  (taking  the  particle  not  intincted).  Meanwhile 
outside  they  sing  a  beautiful  hymn  with  alleluias.  The  curtain 
is  drawn  back,  the  deacon,  clergy  and  laity  make  their  Com- 
munion. There  follow  last  prayers  and  a  synapte.  Then  comes 
an  astonishing  Romanism.  The  celebrant  sings  the  last  Gospel 
(St.  John  i.  1-14).  He  blesses  the  people.  Psalm  xxxiii.  is  sung, 
and  they  go  back  to  the  sacristy  and  unvest.3  Afterwards  bread, 
blessed  at  the  beginning  (neshkhar),  is  distributed.  On  the  eves 
of  the  Epiphany  and  Easter  they  celebrate  the  holy  liturgy  late 
in  the  afternoon.4 

1  Prayers  said  silently  (uvariKws)  are  khorhhrdabar  ;  "  aloud  "  (ex^wv-qais) 
is  'i  dsain. 

2  The  command  to  "  Do  this  in  memory  of  me  "  is  not  quoted  explicitly. 
There  is  a  little  elevation  before  the  epiklesis,  at  the  words  :  "  We  offer 
unto  thee  of  thine  own,  in  all  things,  and  for  all  things  " — a  Latin  practice. 

3  Throughout  the  liturgy  the  celebrant  says  prayers  in  a  low  voice, 
while  the  deacon  and  choir  sing  aloud.  He  ends  these  prayers  with  a 
last  clause  (hvptiovrjcris)  aloud. 

4  The  Armenian  liturgy  has  been  translated  many  times.  It  is  published 
in  Armenian  and  English  by  the  Vardapet  Isaiah  Asdvadzadouriants 
{Liturgy  of  the  Holy  Apostolic  Church  of  Armenia,  London,  1887),  in  English 
only  by  "  two  Armenian  priests  "  {The  Divine  Liturgy  of  the  Holy  Apostolic 
Church  of  Armenia  (Cope  and  Fenwick,  1908).  The  best  and  most  con- 
venient version  is  in  Brightman  :  Eastern  Liturgies  (Oxford,  1896),  pp. 
4!2-457- 


THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH  TO-DAY         445 

I  do  not  think  it  possible  to  share  the  natural  enthusiasm  of 
Armenians  for  their  liturgy.  It  is  late  in  type,  and  this  mixture 
of  foreign  elements  is  not  attractive  to  a  liturgist.  But  it  has  the 
advantage  of  representing  very  well  the  character  of  their  Church. 
Greek  in  essence,  looking  towards  Syria,  and  much  Latinized,  if 
she  is  less  attractive  to  a  student  from  this  mixture,  she  may 
through  it  be  destined  to  act  as  a  connecting-link  between  East 
and  West,  Greece  and  Syria.  If  Armenia  could  help  to  heal  our 
lamentable  breaches,  the  thanks  of  a  united  Christendom  would 
bring  her  more  honour  than  would  a  pure  rite  ;  and  her  survival 
during  so  long  a  martyrdom  would  not  have  been  in  vain.1 

Summary 

Of  about  four  million  Armenians  about  three-quarters  belong 
to  the  Gregorian  Church.  This  Church  rejects  Chalcedon  and  is 
Monophysite,  though  in  a  mild  form.  Otherwise  it  holds  much 
the  position  of  the  Orthodox.  Its  head  is  the  Supreme  Katho- 
likos-Patriarch  at  Etshmiadzin.  Under  him  are  Katholikoi  at 
Sis  and  Aghthamar,  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople  and  Jerusalem, 
many  archbishops  and  bishops.  Vardapets  are  a  higher  rank  of 
priests,  specially  ordained,  who  have  privileges.  They  and  all 
bishops  must  be  celibate  monks.  There  are  about  four  hundred 
celibate  and  four  thousand  married  ecclesiastics.  The  vestments 
are  Byzantine,  or  rather  Coptic-Jacobite,  with  notable  Latin 
additions,  such  as  the  mitre.  They  do  not  keep  Christmas  as 
distinct  from  Epiphany.  Three-quarters  of  their  year  are  fast- 
days.  Their  liturgy  is  the  Byzantine  rite,  with  some  Syrian  and 
many  Latin  elements.  It  begins  with  our  preparatory  prayers 
and  ends  with  our  last  gospel.  They  have  only  one  anaphora. 
Their  most  notable  liturgical  practices  are  unleavened  bread  and 
an  unmixed  chalice. 

1  Indeed,  I  believe  that  the  Gregorian  Armenians  are,  on  the  whole,  better 
disposed  towards  Catholics  than  any  other  separated  Eastern  Church. 


CHAPTER   XIV 

THE    HOPE    OF   REUNION 

We  have  now  completed  our  account  of  all  lesser  separated  Eastern 
Churches.  But  a  word  must  yet  be  added  concerning  the  ques- 
tion which  will  most  interest  Catholics.  What  hope  is  there  of 
reunion  with  these  ?  First  of  all,  we  note  that  the  idea  of  reunion 
with  the  "  East/'  as  if  it  were  one  body,  is  absurd.  These 
Churches  are  divided  among  themselves  ;  any  one  might  return 
to  Catholic  unity  without  affecting  the  others.  Indeed,  reunion 
with  one  might  even  make  greater  difficulties  for  the  others.  If 
the  Jacobites  joined  us,  their  hereditary  opponents  the  Nes- 
torians  would  probably  see  in  that  only  a  new  reason  for  stand- 
ing aloof.  If  the  Orthodox  came  back,  all  these  smaller  Churches 
so  dread  Russia  that  they  would  be  more  frightened  of  us  than 
ever.  Certainly  our  chief  hope,  for  many  reasons,  is  the  reunion 
of  the  Orthodox.  Yet  we  must  hope  for  the  other  Churches  too. 
At  first  sight  it  may  seem  that  they  are  further  off  than  the 
Orthodox,  since  they  have  each  one  more  (and  a  great)  heresy. 
But  I  doubt  whether  that  obvious  point  is  really  important. 
For  one  thing,  it  is  rather  crude  to  estimate  the  error  of  a  heretic 
mechanically  by  the  number  of  dogmas  in  which  he  is  wrong. 
In  every  case  what  matters  most  is  the  schism.  If  a  heretic 
comes  back  to  the  Catholic  Church  he  accepts  her  as  one  thing, 
he  submits  to  all  her  teaching  on  the  same  basis,  because  she  is 
the  Church  of  Christ  with  whom  her  Lord  is  all  days.  The 
number  of  particular  points  he  accepts  is  a  minor  matter.  Then 
the  hereditary  heresies  of  these  Churches  do  not  really  move 


THE  HOPE   OF  REUNION  447 

their  members  now.  The  ancient  questions  decided  by  Ephesus 
and  Chalcedon  are  not  the  real  issue.  If  they  keep  heretical 
formulas,  refuse  to  acknowledge  old  councils,  name  heretics  in 
their  liturgies,  it  is  because  these  things,  like  their  hierarchies, 
languages,  rites,  are  part  of  their  Church,  and  their  Church  is 
their  nation.  Indeed,  in  some  way  they  may  be  nearer  to  us 
than  are  the  Orthodox.  They  went  out  so  early  that  all  that 
bitter  later  strife  against  the  Papacy  did  not  affect  them. 

That  we  have  much  to  offer  them,  even  from  a  lower  point  of 
view,  is  obvious.  Reunion  with  the  West  would  mean  books, 
education,  better  training  of  their  clergy,  help  and  protection  in 
many  ways.1  And  there  are  better  reasons  for  reunion  than 
that.  Why,  then,  do  they  refuse  it?  The  one  real  reason  is 
their  national  feeling.  The  Church  is  the  nation,  the  only  nation 
to  those  under  the  Turk.  To  this  nation  all  cling  with  pathetic 
loyalty,  all  the  more  since  they  are  ruled  by  a  tyrant  who  is  at 
once  an  infidel  and  a  foreigner.  They  dread  Latin  advances  as 
a  threatened  destruction  of  their  nation.  They  conceive  the 
Pope  as  a  formidable  monster  who  would  make  them  all  Latins. 
They  think  of  the  Uniates  as  merely  a  temporary  compromise 
in  his  nefarious  plans.  He  would,  if  he  could,  make  all  Eastern  1 
Christians  Latins,  swamp  them  in  the  mass  of  a  vast  foreign 
Church.  Then  the  Copt  would  no  longer  be  a  Copt,  the  Ar- 
menian no  longer  an  Armenian. 

In  spite  of  this,  there  is  an  element  which  makes  for  our  cause, 
the  growth  of  the  Catholic  ideal,  as  opposed  to  nationalism ; 
namely,  the  increasing  conviction  that  things  are  not  right  as 
they  are,  that  what  Christ  founded  was  one  visible  united  body 
of  all  his  followers.  They  have  this  sense  of  a  visible  hierarchical 
Church  already,  each  in  his  own  body.  Except  in  the  case  of 
a  few  (chiefly  Armenians)  who  have  read  Protestant  books,  they 
have  no  idea  of  branch  theories.  If  you  tell  a  Jacobite  that  he, 
together  with  Nestorians,  Orthodox,  Papists  and  an  indiscrimi- 
nate collection  of  Protestant  sects,  is  one  Church,  that  the  true 
faith  of  Christ  is  the  greatest  common  measure  of  what  all  these 
believe,  he  will  think,  rightly,  that  you  are  talking  nonsense.     So 

1  I  think  no  one  who  knows  the  Levant  will  dispute  that  the  Uniate 
clergy  are  intellectually  and  morally  above  the  others. 


448        THE  LESSER  EASTERN  CHURCHES 

far  each  Eastern  Church,  logically,  believes  itself  to  be  the  one 
true  Church ;  its  adversaries  are  schismatics,1  all  who  deny  its 
doctrine  are  heretics.2  But  with  the  growth  of  a  wider  con- 
sciousness of  Christendom  this  position  becomes  impossible.  One 
tiny  minority  existing  in  one  district  only  cannot  really  go  on  in 
the  comforting  conviction  that  it  alone  is  the  whole  Church  of 
God  on  earth.  So  there  must  grow  the  consciousness  of  a  really 
Catholic  Church,  of  a  vast  union  of  faithful  throughout  the  world, 
with  which  their  fathers  were  once  in  union.  Of  course  the  Or- 
thodox claim  to  be  this  one  Church  ;  but  they,  too,  in  spite  of 
their  numbers,  exist  only  locally.  If  there  is  anywhere  one  united, 
visible,  universal  body  of  the  faithful  of  Christ,  it  can  only  be 
the  Catholic  body.  Our  hope  is  that  the  consciousness  of  the 
Catholic  ideal  will  show  the  Easterns  that  once  they  were  part 
of  this  body,  that  they  are  not  now,  that  they  could  be  again. 
Circumstances  will  moderate  the  national  ideal  3  and  strengthen 
the  Catholic  ideal. 

As  for  the  national  ideal,  two  considerations  should  cancel  its 
danger.  First,  they  may  understand  that  nationalism  and  re- 
ligion belong  to  different  orders.  They  may  hope  for  national 
independence,  plot  against  the  Turk,  work  for  separate  kingdoms. 
All  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Church  of  Christ.  His  king- 
dom is  not  of  this  world.  The  Magyar  and  the  Czech  have  the 
strongest  possible  national  feeling  ;  but  it  does  not  affect  their 
religion,  nor  prevent  their  union  in  that  other  kingdom  which  is 
not  concerned  with  politics.  And  then,  even  in  religion,  the 
Uniates  combine  the  national  and  Catholic  ideals  perfectly.  A 
Uniate  is  a  citizen  of  the  universal  Church,  he  shares  her  common 
life,  as  did  his  fathers  before  these  unhappy  schisms  began.     But 

1  They  all  set  up  bishops  for  the  true  faithful,  in  total  disregard  of  rival 
hierarchies. 

2  That  is,  a  Monophysite  will  not  call  other  Monophysites  either  heretics 
or  schismatics.  An  Armenian  will  admit  Copts  and  Jacobites  to  be  correct. 
But  he  thinks  Nestorians  heretics,  and  vice  versa.  All  these  smaller 
Churches  think  Catholics  and  Orthodox  to  be  heretics  and  schismatics, 
all  try,  rather  feebly,  to  make  converts  from  other  Churches. 

3  Namely,  their  growing  real  national  independence  will  make  it  less 
necessary  to  hold  to  ecclesiastical  independence,  and  will  diminish  their 
ardent  national  patriotism.  It  is  always  the  small,  weak,  persecuted 
nation  which  is  most  aggressively  patriotic,  in  self-defence. 


THE  HOPE   OF  REUNION  449 

he  is  not  swamped  in  a  Latin  crowd.  He  keeps  his  own  customs, 
laws,  hierarchy,  rites.  A  Uniate  Armenian  has  not  become  a 
Chaldee  nor  a  Latin.  We  do  not  ask  the  separated  Churches  to 
be  Latin,  but  to  be  Uniate.  St.  Athanasius,  St.  Cyril  of  Alex- 
andria, St.  Gregory  the  Illuminator,  were  Uniates  ;  their  children 
will  lose  nothing  worth  having  by  being  so  too.  What  we  hope 
for  them  is  the  growth  of  Catholic  consciousness,  a  righter  under- 
standing of  the  ideal  of  their  Master,  who  founded,  not  separated 
national  Churches,  but  one  fold  and  one  shepherd. 

But  we  Catholics,  while  we  hope  for  their  return  to  the  one 
fold,  owe  them,  even  as  things  are,  in  spite  of  their  schism,  a 
feeling  of  brotherhood.  Even  outside  the  fold  they  are  still  our 
Lord's  sheep,  the  other  sheep  who,  please  God,  will  one  day  hear 
his  voice  and  be  brought  back.  In  a  land  ruled  by  Moslems 
there  is  at  bottom  an  essential  solidarity  between  all  Christians. 
These  other  Christians  too  are  children  of  God,  baptized  as  we 
are.  Their  venerable  hierarchies  descend  unbroken  from  the 
old  Eastern  Fathers,  who  are  our  Fathers  too.  When  they  stand 
at  their  liturgies  they  adore  the  same  sacred  Presence  which 
sanctifies  our  altars,  in  their  Communions  they  receive  the  Gift 
that  we  receive.  And  at  least  for  one  thing  we  must  envy  them, 
for  the  glory  of  that  martyr's  crown  they  have  worn  for  over  a 
thousand  years.  We  can  never  forget  that.  During  all  those 
dark  centuries  there  was  not  a  Copt  nor  a  Jacobite,  not  a  Nes- 
torian  nor  an  Armenian,  who  could  not  have  bought  relief,  ease, 
comfort,  by  denying  Christ  and  turning  Turk.  I  can  think  of 
nothing  else  like  it  in  the  world.  These  poor  forgotten  rayahs 
in  their  pathetic  schisms  for  thirteen  hundred  years  of  often 
ghastly  persecution  kept  their  loyalty  to  Christ.  And  still  for 
his  name  they  bear  patiently  a  servile  state  and  the  hatred  of 
their  tyrants.  Shall  we  call  them  heretics  and  schismatics  ? 
They  are  martyrs  and  sons  of  martyrs.  The  long  blood-stain 
which  is  their  history  must  atone,  more  than  atone,  for  their 
errors  about  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon.  For  who  can  doubt  that 
when  the  end  comes,  when  all  men  are  judged,  their  glorious 
confession  shall  weigh  heavier  than  their  schism  ?  Who  can 
doubt  that  those  unknown  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  will 
earn  forgiveness  for  errors  of  which  they  were  hardly  conscious, 

29 


450        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

when  they  show  the  wounds  they  bore  for  Christ  ?  When  that 
day  comes  I  think  we  shall  see  that  in  their  imperfect  Churches 
they  were  more  Catholic  than  we  now  think.  For  there  is  a 
promise  to  which  these  Eastern  Christians  have  more  right  than 
we  who  sit  in  comfort  under  tolerant  governments  :  Qui  me  con- 
fessus  fuerit  coram  hominibus,  confitebor  et  ego  eum  coram  Patre 
meo. 


INDEX 


ABBREVIATIONS 


Abys.  =  Abyssinia 

Copt. 

=  Coptic 

Lit.= 

=  Liturgy 

(Abyssinian) 

Ctple 

=  Constantin- 

Mal.= 

=  Malabar 

Ap.  =  Apostle 

ople 

Mtr.= 

=  Metropolitan 

Ar.  =  Arabic 

Emp. 

=  Emperor 

Nest. 

=  Nestorian 

Arm.  =  Armenia 

Eth.= 

=  Ethiopia 

Orth. 

=  Orthodox 

(Armenian) 

(Ethiopic) 

Prot. 

=  Protestant 

Bp.  =  Bishop 

Jac.= 

Jacobite 

Ptr.= 

=  Patriarch 

Cath.  =  Catholic 

Kath 

=  Katholikos 

Syn.  = 

=  Synod 

Chr.  =  Christian 

Kg.- 

King. 

Syr.  = 

=  Syria  (Syriac) 

Aba  Salama,  title  of  Abys.  Mtr.,  295, 

308 
Abbas,  Shah  of  Persia  (1586-1628), 

390 
Abbasid  Khalifs,  26,  92 
'Abdu-lMasih   (Christodulos),   Copt. 

Ptr.  (1047-1077),  235-236,  334 
'Abdu-lMasih,  Jac.  Ptr.  (1906),  see 

Ignatius. 
'Abdullah  ibn  'Abdi-lMalik,  Amir  of 

Egypt  (7th  century),  229 
'Abdullah  ibn  Sa'd,  Amir  of  Egypt 

(7th  century),  229 
'Abdu-lHamid    II,    Turkish   Sultan 

(1876-1908),  393 
Abgar  Ukkama,  Kg.  of  Edessa,  29- 

3i,  397 
Abgar  VIII,   Kg.  of  Edessa  (176- 

213),  32,  34 
Abgar  IX,  Kg.  of  Edessa  (216),  23 
Abirad,  Gregory,  Kath.  of  Sis  (1199), 

389 
Abraham,    Arm.    Kath.    (607-615), 

413 
Abraham,  Nest.  Bp.  (1903),  132 


Abraham  or  Abira,    Jac.   anti-Ptr. 

(9th  century),  334 
Abraham,  Malpan,  Prot.  Convert  at 

Mai.  (19th  century),  370 
Abraham  of  Kashkar   (f586),   Syr. 

Monk,  in 
Abrahatu-lAshram,    Abys.    General 

(570),  298 
Abreha,  Kg.  of  Abys.  (4th  century), 

294-295 
Abu-Dakn,  Copt,  historian,  215 
Abu-halim,  Nest.  lit.  book,  143 
Abuna,  title  of  Abys.  Mtr.,  308-310  ; 

always  a  Copt.  Monk,  296,  299 
Abu  Sargah  (St.  Sergius),  church  at 

Cairo,  266 
Abu-sSaifain,  see  Mercurius 
Abyssinia — races,     307-308  ;     same 

as  Ethiopia,  307  ;    dependence  on 

Egypt,    296-297,    299-300,    310  ; 

attempted  independence,  301-302, 

309  ;    Jac.  bp.  in  Abys.,  335 
Acacian  schism  (484-519),  195-199 
Acacius,  Bp.  of  Amida  (5th  century), 

50 


45i 


452        THE  LESSER   EASTERN  CHURCHES 


Acacius  (Akak),  Kath.  of  the  East 

(f495  or  496),  81 
Acacius,   Ptr.   of  Ctple.    (471-489), 

193-195 
Acre  taken  by  Moslems  (1292),  246 
Acta  Maris,  38 
Acta  Thomcs,  354~355 
Addai,  Ap.  of  Edessa,  30 
Addai,  Doctrine  of,  29 
Adiabene  (Hadyab),  25,  39,  89 
Adis  Ababa,  capital  of  Abys.,  308 
Aedesius,   St.,   Ap.   of  Abys.,   294- 

295 
Afrahat,  Syr.  Father,  43-44 
Agathangelos,  Arm.  historian,  395 
Agatho,  Pope  (678-681),  212 
Agatho,  Copt.  Ptr.  (659-677),  229 
Aggai,  Bp.  of  Edessa,  31 
Aghthamar  on  Lake  Van,  415-416  ; 

Kath.  of,  417,  430 
Agnoetai  (Themistians),  Copt,  sect, 

207 
Ahmed  Granye,  Moslem  conqueror 

of  Abys.  (1528),  302 
Ahura  Mazda  (Ormuzd),  Mazdsean 

god,  24 
Ainsworth,     traveller    in    Mesopo- 
tamia, 1 1 7-1 1 8 
Aintab,  Anglican  Arm.  at,  420 
Aitallaha,  Bp.  of  Edessa,  32,  35 
Aitallaha,  Kath.  of  East  (16th  cen- 
tury), 102 
Aitallaha    (Ignatius),    Jac.    bp.    at 

Mai.  (17th  century),  364-365 
Ajnadain,  battle  of  (634),  26 
Akephaloi,  Copt,  sect,  194,  218 
Akoimetai  monks  at  Ctple.,  198 
Aksnaya  (Xenaias),  see  Philoxenus 
Aksum,  capital  of  Abyssinia.  294  ; 

metropolis,  308 
Albania  in  Caucasus,  413 
Albianos,  Arm.   bp.,   402  ;    family, 

402,  408 
Alexander  the  Great  (b.c.  336-323), 

18-19 
Alexander   III,    Pope    (1159-1181), 

and  Prester  John,  106 
Alexander  II,  Copt.  Ptr.  (703-726), 

229 
Alexandrine  Syn.  (430),  63 
Alexios  III,  Emp.  (1 195-1203),  389 


Alfred,   Kg.  of  England  (871-901), 

and  India,  361 
'Ali    ibn    Abi-Talib    protects    Nes- 

torians,  92 
Alp    Arslan,    Selguk    Turk,    devas- 
tates Arm.  (1064),  387 
Alphabet,    Arm.,   408-409  ;     Copt., 

274,  n.  3  ;   Syr.,  18,  n.  1 
Alvarez,  Julius,  bp.  at  Mai.,  372 
Alvarez,  Portuguese  missionary  in 

Abys.,  311 
Altar,    Abys.,     314  ;      Arm.,    433  ; 

Copt.,  269  ;  Jac,  344  ;  Mai.,  377  ; 

Nest.,  145 
Amadia,  Anglican  mission  at,  118, 

n.  6 
Ameda,  Kg.  of  Abys.  (480),  297 
Amharic  dialect,  308 
Amice,  Copt.,  273  ;  Jac,  345  ;  Nest., 

147 

Amida,  Jac.  Ptr.  at,  328  ;  see  Diyar- 
bakr 

'Amru-bnu-1'Asi,  Moslem  con- 
queror of  Egypt,  223,  228 

Ananias,  Arm.  Kath.  (943-967),  415 

Anaphora,  Abys.,  316  ;  Arm.,  441- 
444  ;  Copt.,  281  ;  Jac,  346~347  »' 
Mai.,  378  ;  Nest.,  151-152 

Anastasius,  Copt.  Ptr.  (603-614), 
222,  334 

Anastasius,  priest  at  Ctple.,  61-62 

Anathemas  of  St.  Cyril  Alex.,  63, 
73  ;   of  Nestorius,  63 

Anatolius,  Bp.  of  Ctple.  (449-458), 

I74-i75,  I77>  l86 
"  Angelic  habit,"  Copt.,  257 
Anglican  mission  to  Jac,  335  ;    to 

Nest.,    122-126 ;     relations   with 

Armenians,  432,  n.  4  ;  with  Copts, 

260-261,  258,  n.  3  ;    at  Malabar, 

366-367 
Anglican  Armenians,  420  ;   Malabar 

Anglicans,  375 
Ani  in  Arm.,  387,  410,  415 
Anjur,  Reformed  Church  at,  373, 375 
Anointing  the  sick,  Arm.,  426,  400  ; 

Copt.,  280;  Nest.,  138. 
Anra  Mainyu  (Ahriman),  Mazdaean 

evil  spirit,  24 
Anthimos  of  Tyana  ordains  Arm. 

bp.,  407 


INDEX 


453 


Anticipation  of  consecration,  Arm., 

443 
Antidoron,  Arm.,  444 ;    Copt.,  282, 

285  ;   Jac,  350  ;   Nest.,  150 
Antioch  in  Syria,  20,  328  ;    Patri- 
archate of   all  Syria,   36-37,   48  ; 

Jac.  Ptr.  of,  325,  328,  337-34°- 
Antiochos    II,    Kg.    of    Syria    (b.c. 

261-246),  20 
Antiochos   III,    Kg.   of  Syria   (b.c. 

223-187),  21 
Antiochos   IV,    Kg.    of   Syria    (b.c. 

175-164),  20-21 
Antiochos  XIII,  Kg.  of  Syria  (b.c. 

64),  21 
Antony,  St.,  of  the  desert,  275 
Antony,  St.,  Copt,  monastery,  255 
Aphthartolatrians       (Aphthartodo- 

cetes,  Julianists),  207,  332  ;   Arm., 

425 
Apollinaris,    Orth.    Ptr.    of    Alex- 
andria (550-568),  220-221 
Apollinaris  of  Laodicsea,  55,  58-59  ; 

heresy  revived  by  Monophysites, 

164 
Apostles,  Anaphora  of,  Abys.,  316  ; 

Lit.  of,  Nest.,  151-152 
Aquileian  schism  and  patriarchate, 

205-206 
Arab  conquest  of  Arm.,   386-387  ; 

of  Egypt,  223-224 
Arabic  language  among  Copts.,  227, 

276-277  ;    in  Jac.  lit.,  348,  350 
Ararat,  Mount,  384-385,  416 
Aratshnord,  Arm.  title,  431,  436 
Archaeology,   Coptic,   252,   265-266, 

288-289 
Ardashir  (Artaxerxes),  Kg.  of  Persia 

(227),  23. 
Argon  Khan,  Mongol  chief,  98 
Arianism  in  India,  357  ;   rejected  by 

Abys.,  297 
Arians  at  Edessa,  36 
Aristakes,  Arm.  Kath.,  399,  401 
Aristolaus,  Imperial  Notary,  73 
Aristotle  in  Syriac,  95 
Ark,    Abys.,    314-315  ;     Copt.    271, 

282 
Armenia,  geography,  383-384  ;  race, 

384  ;   Arm.,  maior  and  minor,  383, 

4°5  ',    political  history,  383-394  ; 


literature,  394-396,  408-409  ;  sta- 
tistics, 396,  432  ;  language,  438  ; 
arms,  389,  n.  1 

Armenians,  relation  with  other 
Monophysites,  414,  432  ;  wander 
abroad,  387-388,  391  ;  in  Egypt, 
236-237 

Arsaces,  Parthian  Kg.  (b.c  250),  21 

Arshak  I,  Kg.  of  Arm.  (364),  386 

Arshak  III,  Kg.  of  Arm.  (341-367  ?), 
407 

Artaxias,  Kg.  of  Arm.  (b.c  190),  385 

Artziburian,  Arm.  fast,  391 

Asbeha,  Kg.  of  Abys.,  295 

'Ashirah,  Nest,  tribe,  127 
j    Ashot  I,  Kg.  of  Arm.  (856),  387 
;    Ashtishat,  Metropolis  of  Arm.,  403, 
401 

Ashtishat,  Syn.  (365  ?),  407 

Asia,  Roman  province,  21 

Assemani,  J.  S.,  323,  n.  1 

"  Assyrian  Church,"  7-8 

Athanasius,  St.  (j  373),  against 
Apollinaris,  59  ;  ordains  Frumen- 
tius,  295 

Athanasius  I,  Jac.  Ptr.  (595-631), 
329.  334.  222 

Athanasius  VI  (Haye),  Jac.  Ptr. 
(1058-c.  1064),  337 

Athanasius  VII,  Jac.  Ptr.  (logo- 
ff), 337 

Atsh,  right  arm  of  St.  Gregory  the 
Illuminator,  416-417 

Augln,  see  Eugene 

Babai  the  Great,  Nest.  Monk  (f628), 

83 
Babken,  Arm.  Kath.  (490-515),  412 
Babwai   (Babai)    I,    Kath.   of  East 

(457-484),  80,  46 
Babwai  (Babai)   II,   Kath.  of  East 

(497-502),  82 
Badger,  G.  P.,  118,  122,  335 
Badr    alGamali,    Wazir    in    Egypt 

(1073-1094),  237,  301 
Bagdad,  built  (750),  92  ;    centre  of 

Khalifate,  92,  228,  n.  4  ;    sacked 

(1258),  27,97 
Bagratid  Kgs.  of  Arm.,  387 
Bahram  V,  Kg.  of  Persia  (420-438), 

50 


454    THE  LESSER  EASTERN  CHURCHES 


Bahri  Sultans  of  Egypt,  245 
Baibars,    Sultan    of    Egypt    (1260- 

1277),    245-246  ;      defeats    Arm. 

(1266),  389 
Baker,  Bethune,  66-67 
Baptism  rite,  Arm.,  439  ;  Copt.,  279  ; 

Jac.,  343  ;    Nest.,  156-157 
Baradai,  James,   organizer  of  Jac. 

Church  (f578).  324-326,  343 
Bardesanes    (Bar   Daisan),    Gnostic 

heretic  (f222),  34. 
Barhebraeus  (Gregory  Abu-lFarag) , 

Jac.  Mafrian  and  writer  (J  1286), 

33o,  79,  n.  1,  323,  n.  1,  332,  337, 

342,  343 
Bar-Mama,  family  of  Nest.   Kath., 

101,  102-103,  129 
Bar    Sauma,    Bp.    of    Nisibis    (f   c. 

495),  76-77»  79-82,  52 
Barses,  Bp.  of  Edessa  (361),  36 
Bartholomew,    St.,    Ap.    of    India, 

354  ;    of  Arm.,  397 
Bar  Wahib,  see  Bdarzake 
Basil,   St.,  Bp.  of   Caesarea   (|379), 

and     Arm.,     407-408  ;      ordains 

St.  Ephrem,  35 
Basil,  Jac.  Mafrian  at  Mai.  (1750), 

365 
Basil,  Lit.  of,  Byz.,  441,  n.  5  ;    Copt., 

281 
Basilides,  Kg.  of  Abys.  (1 632-1 665), 

302 
Basiliskos,  Emp.  (475-476),  192 
Baumstark,  A.,  141,  n.  3,  351 
Bautha  dninwaye,  Nest,  book,  143 
Bayazet  II,  Turkish  Sultan  (1481- 

1512),  and  Arm.,  390 
Bdarzake    Bar    Wahib,    Jac.    Ptr. 

(fi333),  333 
'Bedyeshu',  see  'Ebedyeshu' 
Bejan  (Bedjan),  P.,  Lazarist,  67 
Bells  in  church,  Abys.,  318;    Arm., 

434,   441.  443  ',     Copt.,  270-271  ; 

Mai.,  378  ;    Nest.,  142,  n.  2 
Benjamin,     Copt.     Ptr.     (620-659), 

223-224,  229,  299 
Benjamin,  Nest.  Kath.  (1903),  131- 

132 
Berat    (bara'ah),    Turkish    diploma 

given  to  Ptr.,  Copt.,    228,    249  ; 

Jac,  337  ;    Nest.,  129 


Beth  'Abe,  monastery,  94,  112 
Beth  'Adrai,  Syn,  (485),  81 
Beth  Bagash,  Nest,  diocese,  94 
Beth  Lapat  (Al-'Ahwaz),  Nest,  dio- 
cese, 40  ;    Syn.  (484),  80-81 
v  Bible,  Abys.,  299,  303,  320  ;    Arm., 

394,  409,  439  ;   Copt.,  265  ;  Mai., 

366,  369  ;    Nest.,  139 
Biruni,  Moslem  writer  (11048),  96 
Blue,  colour  of  Copt,  dress,  243,  253 
Books,   liturgical,   Abys.,   315-316  ; 

Arm.,  438-439  ;    Copt.,  277-278  ; 

Nest.,  142-143 
Branch  theory,  13-14,  447  ;    Arm., 

427,.  13  ;  Copt.,  262  ;  Nest.,  139 
Bread,  unleavened  in  Arm.  lit.,  442 
Browne,  W.  H.,  Anglican  missionary 

to  Nest.,  118 
Bruce,  J.,  traveller  in  Abys.  (1768- 

1773),  303 
Buchanan,     C,     traveller    in    Mai. 

(1806),  366 
Bud     Periodeutes,     traveller     (6th 

century),  360 
Burgi  Sultans  of  Egypt,  245,  247 
Burial  service,  Nest.,  158 
Byzantine  rite  in  Arm.,  441 

Cesarea  in  Cappadocia,  metropolis 

of  Arm.,  404-405;   Gregory  Ilium. 

educated  there,  398 
Cairo,  233  ;   residence  of  Copt.  Ptr., 

236 
Calendar,    Abys.,    317-318  ;    Arm., 

437-438  ;    Copt.,  286-288  ;    Jac, 

351-352  ;   Mai.,  378  ;   Nest.,  147- 

148 
Candidian,    Imperial   Commissioner 

at  Ephesus  (431),  64 
Canon  Law,  Abys.,  320-321  ;  Copt., 

235-236,    240,    242  ;     Jac,    342  ; 

Nest.,  135-136 
Celestine  III,  Pope  (1191-1198),  and 

the  Arm.,  389 
Celibacy,  Arm.,  431,  440;  Mai.,  369- 

37°,  375;  Nest.,  80-81,  in,  135 
Ceylon,  Manichaeism  at,  359 
Chalcedon,    Syn.     (451),     176-181  ; 

test  of  orthodoxy,  179,  260,  411  ; 

Arm.  present,  411 
Chaldaean  Uniates,  101-103,  127 


INDEX 


455 


Charter  of  Mai.  Christians,  362-363 
China,  Nest,  in,  106-108 
Chorepiskopos,    Jac,    341  ;     Nest., 

134 
Chosroes   II,    Kg.    of   Persia    (590- 

628),  90,  222-223,  329 
Chrism,  Arm.  440-441  ;    Copt.  255, 

279  ;    Nest.  131,  157 
"  Christ  "  in  Nestorius's  idea,  71 
Christianity  in  Abys.,  321 
Christmas,  Arm.,  437,  413 
Christodulos  ('Abdu-lMasih),  Copt. 

Ptr.  (1047-1077),  235-236,  334 
Christological  theology,  56-59 
"  Church  of  England  Syrians,"  375 
Church  Missionary  Society  in  Abys., 
303  ;     Egypt,    258,    n.    3  ;    Mai., 
366-367,  369-37° 
Churches,   Abys.,   312-314  ;     Arm., 
432-434  ;    Copt.,  266-271  ;    Jac, 
344  ;   Mai.,  377  ;   Nest.,  144-146 
Cilician  Armenia,  388,  415 
Circumcision,    Abys.,    319  ;     Copt., 

242,  279 
Claude,    Kg.  of  Abys.  (1540-1559), 

302 
Communicatio  idiomatum,  87 
Communion,    reception     and     rite, 
Abys.,  317  ;   Arm.,  439-440,  444  ; 
Copt.,  285,  286,  279  ;    Jac,  350  ; 
Nest.,  156,  149 
Confession  (Sacr.  of  Penance),  Abys., 
321  ;     Arm.,    426,    440  ;     Copt., 
279  ;    Jac,  343  ;    Nest.,  138 
Confession     and     Incense     (Copt.), 

240-242 
"  Confession  of  St.  Gregory"  (Arm.), 

400 
Confirmation,    Arm.,    439  ;     Copt., 

279  ;   Nest.,  157 
Conrad  of  Wittelsbach,  Archbp.  of 
Mainz,   crowns   Leo   II    of   Arm. 
(1199),  389 
Constans  II,  Emp.  (641-668),  211 
Constantine  of  Melitine,    Jac.   Ptr. 

(1283),  333 
Constantinople,  Arm.  at,  418  ;  Arm. 
massacre    (1896),    394  ;     Jac.    at, 
332 
Constantinople,  Arm.  Ptr.,  418,  422, 
430 


Constantinople,     2nd     Syn.     (553), 

204-206  ;    3rd  Syn.  (680),  212 
Constantius,    Emp.    (337-340),  and 

Theophilus  of  Diu,  357 
Constituta    of    Vigilius    (553-554), 
204-205 

Consubstantial,  Christ  with  us,  167- 
168,  171 

Copts,  name,  215,  253,  8-9,  185  ; 
statistics,  253  ;  language,  274- 
276,  227  ;  relations  with  Jac, 
333-335;  Copt.  bp.  at  Jerusalem, 
335.  256  ;  Copt,  monks  mis- 
sionaries, 297-298 

Cosmas,  Orth.  Ptr.  of  Alexandria 
(727-c  775),  231 

Councils  acknowledged  by  Arm., 
414,  n.  7 

Cranganore  in  India,  362,  364-365 

Crusades,  97,  237-239,  246,  332  ; 
relations  with  Arm.,  388-389,  415 

Ctesiphon,  20  ;  see  Seleucia-Ctesi- 
phon 

Cutts,  E.  L.,  Anglican  writer  on 
Nest.,  118 

Cyprus,  Nest,  in,  104,  108 

Cyriacus  I,  Jac.  Ptr.  (793-817),  334 

Cyril,  St.  of  Alexandria  (f444),  62-65 

Cyril  III,  Copt.  Ptr.  (1 235-1243  or 
1250),  242-243,  335 

Cyril  IV,  Copt.  Ptr.  (1854-1862), 
265 

Cyril  V,  Copt.  Ptr.,  259 

Cyril,  Jac.  Mtr.  at  Mai.  (1909),  372 

Cyril,  Mtr.  of  Abys.  (17th  century), 

299 
Cyril,  Lit.  of  (Copt.),  281 
Cyrus,  Orth.  Ptr.  of  Alex,  (c  630- 

642),  210,  221,  224 

Dadyeshu'  I,  Kath.  of  East  (421- 
456),  50-52 

Dahlmann,  J.,  on  St.  Thomas's 
mission,  355 

Dair  asSultan,  monastery  at  Jeru- 
salem, 304,  313,  n.  1 

Dair  Za'faran,  Jac.  monastery, 
329,  338 

Damascus,  centre  of  Khalifate  (661- 
750),  26,  228,  327  ;  Nest.  bp.  of, 
104  ;    Jac.  at,  336 


456        THE   LESSER   EASTERN  CHURCHES 


Damian,    Copt.    Ptr.     (570-593    or 

605),  208,  222,  334 
Dancing  in  Abys.  rite,  318 
Daniel,  K.,  editor  of  Mai.  paper,  374 
Dar  Koni,  Nest,  village,  39 
Dauida,  Nest,  book,  143 
David,  Arm.  hero  (f  1728),  390 
Dead,  prayers  for,  Arm.,  426,  438  ; 

Copt.,  263-264  ;    Jac.,  349,  35i  ; 

Nest.,  154,  158 
Demetrian,    Ptr.    of    Antioch    (3rd 

century),  40 
Denha  I,  Kath.  of  East  (1265-1281), 

97 

Denba  Shim'un,  Kath.  of  East 
(fi593),  102 

Diamper,  Syn.  at  Mai.  (1599),  3^3 

Diatessaron  of  Tatian,  34-35,  77 

Difnari,  Copt,  book,  277 

Dikran  (Tigranes)  I,  Kg.  of  Arm. 
(c.  90-55  B.C.),  385 

Dimmi,  92  ;  conditions  under  Mos- 
lems, 93,  226  ;   see  Rayah 

Diodore  of  Tarsus  (378-c.  394),  59- 
60  ;   Nest,  saint,  84 

Dionysius  of  Alexandria  (248-265) 
and  Christianity  in  Arm.,  397 

Dionysius  V,  Jac.  Ptr.  (1 077-1 078), 

337 
Dionysius    of    Melitine,    Jac.    Ptr. 

(1252),  332 
Dionysius  Bar  Salibi,   Jac.   Bp.  of 

Amida  (fii7i),  191,  331,  343,  ™- 

3,  346,  348 
Dionysius  V,  Mtr.  at  Mai.,  366,  371- 

373 
Dioscor    of    Alexandria    (444-451), 

165,     172,     177-178,     184,    219  ; 

Monophysite  saint,  260,  287 
Dioscor  II,    Copt.    Ptr.    (517-520), 

219 
Diu  (Dibus)  in  India,  356-357 
Divine    Office,    Abys.,    315,    n.    3  ; 

Arm.,  439  ;  Copt.,  278-279  ;  Jac, 

351  ;    Nest.,  141-142,  149 
Diyarbakr    (Amida),    seat    of    Jac. 

Patr.,  328,  340  ;    Jac.  at,  336 
Dogmas  and  Doctrines  (Arm.),  427 
Domnus  II,  Ptr.  of  Antioch  (441- 

448),  166,  179 
Dongola,  Christianity  at,  305 


Duin  (Tovin)  in  Arm.,  386,  410  ; 
Syn.  (554  ?),  413  ;  (7th  century), 
413 

East  Syrian  rite,  1 40-1 41 

'Ebedyeshu'  ('Bedyeshu',  Ebed- 
jesus),  Nest.  Mtr.  of  Nisibis 
(fi3i8),  128,  136 

'Ebedyeshu',  Chaldaean  Ptr.  (11567), 
102 

Edessa,  22,  28,  78  ;  Christianity  at, 
29,  32  ;  metropolis  of  East  Syria, 
32,  36  ;  source  of  Arm.  Chris- 
tianity, 397  ;  Nest,  at,  75  ;  theo- 
logical school,  78  ;  St.  Thomas, 
Ap.,  buried  at,  355  ;  rite  of,  140- 
141 

Edessene  Chronicle,  32 

Edward  I,  Kg.  of  England  (1272- 
1307),  and  Rabban  Sauma,  99 

Eggs  as  church  ornament,  270,  434 

Egin,  Orth.  Arm.  at,  420 

Egypt,  Mother-Church  of  Abys., 
296-297,  300,  302,  309-310  ; 
Jac.  in,  332  ;  Nest,  in,  104  ;  see 
Copts 

Ekthesis  of  Heraclius  (638),  211 

Elephant,  year  of  (570-571),  298 

Elias  (Eliya),  name  of  Kath.  of  East, 
102 

Elias  V,  VI,  VII,  VIII,  Kath.  of 
East,  102—103 

Eliot,  Sir  C,  393,  n.  2 

Elisaeus  Vartapet,   Arm.   historian, 

395 
"  Energy  "  in  Christ,  2 10-2 11 
English  conquest  of  Mai.,  366  ;  Pro- 
tectorate in  Egypt,  250 
Enush,  Kath.  of  East  (880),  104 
'Enyana,  Jac.  prayer,  351,  n.  3 
Ephesus,  Syn.  (431),  63-65 
Ephesus,  Robber-Synod  (449),  173- 

175 
Ephrem,  St.  (f373),  35 
Ephrem  of  Gandisabur,   Nest.  bp. 

(780),  94 
Ephrem  (Ephraim),  Copt.  Ptr.  (977- 

980),  234 
Epiklesis,  Abys.,   317  ;    Arm.,  426, 

444  ;     Copt.,    284  ;      Jac,    349  ; 

Nest.,  155-156 


INDEX 


457 


Erzerum,  Arm.  Syn.  (c.  629),  414  ; 
massacre  (1890),  393 

"  Essence,"  68  ;  (ithya),  83  ;  see 
Nature 

Ethiopia,  history,  293-294  ;  con- 
version, 294-295  ;  Eth.  and  Abys. 
307  ;   see  Abyssinia 

Etshmiadzin,  Arm.  monastery  and 
patriarchate,   416-417,   429,   433, 

385,  39i,  398-399,  4°3>  4°9-4IC>, 

420,  427-428 
Eucharist,  belief  about,  Arm.,  426  ; 

Copt.,  263  ;  Jac.  343  ;  Nest.,  138, 

155-156 
Eucharistic  bread,  Arm.,  442;  Copt., 

282  ;   Jac,  334  ;   Nest.,  150-151 
Euchologion,  Copt,  book,  277 
Euchomenoi,  Euchitai  (Masalians), 

89 
Eudokia,  Empress  (I460),  188-190 
Eugene    (Augin),    founder   of   East 

Syr.   monasticism   (4th  century),   j 

iio-iii,  43 
Eugene  III,  Pope  (1145-1157),  and 

Prester  John,  106 
Eugene  IV,  Pope  (1431-1447),  and 

Abys.,  299 
Eulogius,  Orth.  Ptr.  of  Alexandria 

(579-607),  221 
Eusebius,    Bp.    of   Dorylaeum    (5th 

century),  170,  178 
Eutyches,  Archimandrite  at  Ctple. 

(5th     century),      167-173  ;       de- 
nounced by  Arm.,  424 
Eutychianism    and    Monophysism, 

168,  186,  342,  411 
Eutychius  (Sa'id  ibn  Batrik),  Orth. 

Ptr.  of  Alex.  (933-940),  214 
Ewangeliun,  Nest,  book,  143 
Extreme  Unction,  Arm.,  426,  440  ; 

see  Anointing  of  the  Sick 

Faith  of  early  Persian  Church,  43- 

44 
Fan    (Rhipidion),    Arm.,    441,    443, 

434  ;   Copt.  271 
Fast,  Abys.,  317  ;  Arm.,  438  ;  Copt., 

287  ;   Jac,  351  ;   Nest.,  148 
Fatimid    Khalifs    in    Egypt    (969- 

1171),  232-233 
Faustus,  Arm.  bp.,  407 


Faustus     Byzantinus,      Arm.      his- 
torian, 395 
Felix     II     (III),     Pope     (483-492), 

Acacian  schism,  194 
Filioque,  see  Procession  of  the  Holy 

Ghost 
Filutha'us,  Copt,  theologian,  260, 263 
Flavian,    Bp.    of   Ctple.    (447-449), 

169,  174 
Flavian  II,   Ptr.  of  Antioch   (498- 

511),  196 
Florence,  Syn.  (1438-1439),  247 
Form  of  H.  Eucharist,  Nest.   155- 

156  ;   see  Epiklesis. 
Francis  of  Assisi,  St.   (fi226),  242, 

n.  2 
Fra vitas    (Flavitas),    Bp.   of  Ctple. 

(489-490),  195 
Frederick  I,  Emp.  (1152-1190),  and 

Arm.,  389 
Frontier  in  Arm.,  390  ;    Nest.,   18, 

100 
Frumentius,  St.,  Ap.  of  Abys.  (4th 

century),  294-295,  297 
Fustat  in  Egypt,  224 

Gabriel  II,  Copt.  Ptr.  (1131-1146), 

240,  301 
Gabriel  V,  Copt.  Ptr.  (1409-142 7), 

247 
Gabriel,    Nest.    bp.    at   Mai.    (18th 

century),  365 
Gabriel    of    Shiggar,    Jac.    convert 

(7th  century),  329 
Gagik     II,     Kg.     of     Arm.     (nth 

century),  388 
Gaiane,  St.  (Arm.),  398 
Gainas  (Gaianus),  Copt.  Ptr.  (538), 

219 
Gainites,  Copt,  sect,  220,  229 
Galla,  tribe  in  Abys.,  307 
Gaza,  Nest,  book,  143 
Geber,  name  for  Mazdseans,  24,  91 
Gelasius    of    Cyzicus    (Arm.    under 

Caesarea),  405 
Georgia,  see  Iberia 
Ge'z,  Abys.  language,  307,  315 
Ghevont,  see  Leo 
Girdle  worn  by  Copts,  243 
Gmurtha,  Jac.  name  for  the  Blessed 

Sacrament,  350 


458 


THE  LESSER  EASTERN  CHURCHES 


Gobat,  S.,  Anglican  bp.  in  Jerusalem 

(tl879),  303.  420 
Gondar,  capital  of  Abys.,  308 
Gospel,  last  (Arm.),  444 
Gospel-book  (Copt.),  271 
Governors,  Book  of,  112 
Grado,  see  of,  205-206 
Grant,     A.,     Prot.     missionary     to 

Nest.,  117 
Greek  influence  in  Arm,,  398,  407- 

409,  441  ;   in  Syria,  19-20,  37 
Greek  language  in  Copt,  rite,  273- 

277  ;    Jac,  346  ;    in  Nubia,  305- 

306 
"Gregorian"  Church  (Arm.),  427,  10 
Gregory    the    Illuminator,    Ap.    of 

Arm.     (fa    315-326),    396-400; 

family  of  St.  Gregory,  401,  408 
Gregory  of  Nazianzos,   St.    (f39o), 

on   Arm.,  392  ;     Theotdkos,  62  ; 

lit.  of  (Copt.),  281 
Gregory  IX,  Ptr.  of  Sis  (1439),  416 
Gregory   X    (1443-1466),    Kath.   of 

Arm.,  417 
Gregory,    Jac.    Mtr.    of    Jerusalem 

(1665),  365 
Groups  of  Christians,  5-6,  14-15 
Gundaphor   (Gondophares),    Indian 

kg-,  354-355 
Gutschmid,  A.,  395 
Guy  de   Lusignan,    Kg.   of  Cyprus 

and  Arm.  (1342-1344),  389-390 

Hagiology,  Arm.  hymn,  443 
Hai,  haikh,  name  of  Arm.,  384 
Haikal,  Copt,  sanctuary,  267 
Haikal-screen,  see  Ikonostasion 
Hail,  see  Michael 
Hakim,    Abbasid    Khalif    at    Cairo 

(1262),  246 
Hakim,  Fatimid    Khalif   in    Egypt 

(996-1021),  234-235 
Hannan  the  Scribe,  29 
Hanzalah    ibn    Safwain,    Amir    of 

Egypt  (8th  century),  230 
Hariin  ar-rashid,  Khalif  (786-809), 

95 
Henanians  (sect),  89 
Henotikon  of  Zeno  (482),  193-194, 

81  ;    in  Arm.,  412  ;    of  Justin  II 

(571),  206 


Henry  VI,  Emp.    (1190-1197),  and 

Arm.,  389 
Heraclius,  Emp.  (610-641),  90,  209- 

2ii,  223,  414 
Heraclius,  fast  of  (Copt.),  287 
Heraklides,  Book  of,  66-67 
Herat,  Christianity  at,  50 
Hereditary  bps.    (Nest.),    101,    130, 

132 
Heyling,    P.,    Prot.    missionary    in 

Abys.  (1634),  303 
Hierarchy,    Abys.,    311  ;     ordained 

in  Egypt,  300  ;    Arm.,  427-432  ; 

Copt.,  256-257  ;    Jac,  331,  340- 

342  ;    Mai.,  359,  374-375  ;    Nest., 

130-134 
Hintshak,  Arm.  society,  393 
Hittites,  384,  n.  1 
Hnana,  Nest,  relic,  138 
Hnanyeshu'   II,  Nest.   Kath.   (774- 

779),  94 
Hnanyeshu',  Nest.  Mtr.,  121,  132 
Hollandish  conquest  of  Mai.,  365 
Holy  Water,  Arm.,  441  ;   Copt.,  285 
Homeritae,  tribe,  357 
Honorius  I,  Pope  (625-638),  211 
Hormisdas,    Pope    (514-523),    198- 

199,  201 
Hovakim,  see  Joachim 
Hovhannes,  see  John 
Howard,    G.    B.,    traveller   in   Mai. 

(1864),  376-379 
Hripsime,  St.  (Arm.),  398 
Hudra,  Nest,  book,  143 
Hulagu  Khan,  Mongol  chief  (1258), 

97 
Hypostasis,  68-69,  83,  85  95 

Ibas,  Bp.  of  Edessa  (f457),  76-77  ; 

letter  to  Mari,  202 
Iberia    (Georgia)  under  Arm.,  387, 

413  ;    orthodox,  414 
Ibn-nasal,    Copt,    theologian    (13th 

century),  260 
Iconoclasm,     212  ;     among     Nest., 

137  ;    Copt.,  265 
Ignatius    of    Antioch,    St.    (fio7), 

338,  n.  6 
Ignatius,  name  of  Jac.  Ptr.,  338 
Ignatius  II,  David,  Jac.  Ptr.  (1222- 
1252),  335 


INDEX 


459 


Ignatius  III,  Joshua,  Jac.  Ptr. 
(1264-1282),  338 

Ignatius  IV,  Philoxenus  or  Nimrod, 
Jac.  Ptr.  (fi292);  333 

Ignatius  V,  Bdarzake  Bar  Wahib, 
Jac.  Ptr.  (1292),  333  ;  see  Bdar- 
zake 

Ignatius  VI,  Ismael,  Jac.  Ptr. 
(1333-1366),  338 

Ignatius  XII,  Noah,  Jac.  Ptr. 
(1493-1509),  333 

Ignatius  Mas'ud,   Jac.  Ptr.   (1495), 

333 
Ignatius     'Abdulmasih,     Jac.     Ptr. 

(deposed  1906),  339,  37x-373 
Ignatius  'Abdullah  Sattiif,  Jac.  Ptr.t 

338-340,  372-373 
Ikonostasion,      Arm.,      432,      434  ; 

Copt.,  267  ;    Jac,  344. 
Images,    Abys.,    314  ;     Arm.,    426  ; 

Copt.,  264-265  ;   Jac,  344  ;   Mai., 

376-377.  367  ;    Nest.,  137 
Incest  in  Mazdaeism,  25 
India,     meaning     of     name, 


bp. 


357  ; 
in,     229  ;  see 


Monophysite 

Malabar 
Institution,  words  of,  Abys.,  317  ; 

Jac,  347  ;    Nest.,  155-156 
Isaac  I.Bp.of  Seleucia  (399-410),  47 
Isaac,  Copt.  Ptr.  (686-689),  229 
Isaac  of  Haran,  Jac.  Ptr.  (754),  231, 

334 
Isbodikon,     Copt,     name    for     the 

Blessed  Sacrament,  285 
'Itshage,  head  of  Abys.  monks,  312 
Iudicatum  of  Pope  Virgilius  (548), 

204 
Izla,  Mt.,  monastery,  43,  83  in 

Jacobite,  meaning  of  name,  336, 
9,  326  ;  name  used  for  Copts,  9, 
225  ;  statistics,  336  ;  Jac.  and 
Copts,  333-335  ;  at  Mai.,  365, 
368  ;    in  Persia,  329,  89 

James,  St.,  lit.,  345-346  ;  Jac.  form, 
348-351  ;  Arm.  monastery  at 
Jerusalem,  430,  435 

James  Baradai  (Zanzalos,  f 578), 
324-326,  208,  343 

James,  Jac.  bp.  of  Edessa  (|7o8), 
33i 


James,  Bp.  of  Nisibis  (325),  35.  42 
James    of    Srug,    Jac.  poet  (f52i), 

140,  33,  n.  7 
Jengiz  Khan,  Mongol  chief  (1206- 

1227),  27,  97,  389 
Jerusalem,    Arm.    Ptr.,    418,    430  ; 

Copt,   bp.,   243,   256,    335  J     Jac. 

bp.,  327-328 
Jews  at  Edessa,   32-33  ;     at  Mai., 

356,  368 
Joachim  (Hovakim),  Arm.  Ptr.  of 

Ctple.  (1461),  418 
John  I,  Ptr.  of  Antioch  (428-441), 

64-65.  72-75 
John       Askunages,       Monophysite 

sectary  (6th  century),  208 
John  of  Ephesus,  historian  (f  c  585), 

305,  n.  3,  324 
John,  Bp.  in  Persia  (325),  43,  n.  6, 

356 
John       Philoponos,       Monophysite 

sectary  (6th  century),  208 
John  (Hovhannes)  V,  Arm.   Kath. 

(899-931),  413 
John   Talaia,    Orth.    Ptr.    of   Alex- 
andria (482),  193-194 
John  II,  Ptr.  of  Ctple.  (518-520),  198 
John  I   (Hemula),  Copt.  Ptr.  (497- 

507).  219 
John  II  (Nikiotes),  Copt.  Ptr.  (507- 

517).  219 
John  III,  Copt.  Ptr.  (677-686),  229 
John    V,    Copt.    Ptr.    (1146-1164), 

240-241 
John  XI,  Copt.  Ptr.  (i427-i453),247 
John  BarM'adene,  Jac  Ptr.  (1252), 

332 
John  of  Monte  Corvino,  Cath.  bp. 

in  China  (1305),  106 
John  Sulaka,  Kath.  of  East  (fi555)> 

101 
Joseph  VI   (Audu),  Chaldaean  Ptr. 

(1848-1878),  371,  n.  5 
Joseph,  Chaldaean  Mtr.  of  Diyarbakr 

(18th  century),  103 
Joseph  Athanasius,   Reformed  Bp. 

of  Anjur,  374 
Joseph    Cyril,     Reformed     Bp.    of 

Anjur,  373 
Judaism    in    Abys.,    319-320,    294, 

308,  315  ;    Arm.,  402 


>o        THE  LESSER    EASTERN  CHURCHES 


"  Judge    of    the    World,"    title    of 

Copt.  Ptr.,  255,  n.  3 
Julfa,  New,  in  Persia,  387 
Julian,  Copt,  monk,  Ap.  of  Nubia, 

305 

Julian,  Bp.  of  Halicarnassus  (518), 
Monophysite  sectary,  207, 219, 425 

Julianists  (Aphthartolatrai),  Mono- 
physite sect,  207,  332  ;   Arm.,  425 

Julius  III,  Pope  (1550-1555),  or- 
dains Sulaka,  101 

Julius  Alvarez,  bp.  at  Mai.,  372 

Justin  I,  Emp.  (518-527),  198 

Justinian  I,  Emp.  (527-565),  199- 
204,  207,  324 

Justus  Joseph  (Vidvan  Kutti), 
sectary  at  Mai    (1874),  375 

Juvenal,  Ptr.  of  Jerusalem  (1458), 
64,  180,  187-189,  197,  324 

Ka'ba  at  Mecca,  298,  301 
Kadesia,  battle  of  (635),  91 
Kalandion,   Ptr.   of  Antioch   (482), 

191,  192 
Kala'iin,    Sultan   of   Egypt    (1279- 

1290),  245-246 
Kalliana  in  India,  Nest,  bp.,  104 
Karkan,  Chr.  at,  105 
Karshuni,  348,  n.  2 
Karuzutha,  Nest,  prayer,  153 
Kashkar,  Chr.  at,  105 
Kashkul,  Nest,  book,  143 
Katanar,   Mai.  name  for  "  priest," 

37o,  375 

Katholikos,  meaning  of  title,  405, 
48-49,  less  than  Ptr.,  300  ;  Kath. 
of  Albania,  405,  413  ;  Arm.,  402- 
403,  405  ;  Kath.  of  Etshmiadzin, 
427-430  ;  appointment,  421  ; 
Aghthamar,  418,  430  ;  Sis,  418, 
430  ;  Kath.  of  Iberia,  405,  413  ; 
Kath.  of  Mai.,  373  ;  Nest.  Kath. 
(Kath.  of  the  East),  88,  over  all 
Chr.  under  Khalifs  at  Bagdad, 
93  ;  residence,  96,  100  ;  here- 
ditary, 101 

Kathuliki,  Jac.  prayer,  350 

Katshik  I,  Arm.  Kath.  (971-992), 
415.  419 

Kayuma,  Bp.  of  Seleucia  (4th 
century),  47 


Kdam,  wadathar,  Nest,  book,  143 
Keddase,  Abys.  name  for  lit.,  316 
Keryana,  Nest,  book,  143 
Khalid  ibn  Walid,  Ar.  general  (7th 

century),  26 
Khalifate  of  Turkish   Sultan,    246, 

248 
Khartum,  Christianity  at,  307 
Khedive,  title  in  Egypt,  250 
Khorasan,  Christianity  in,  50,  104 
Khosrov,  Kg.  of  Arm.  (f  c.  238),  386 
Kilus,      Abuna     of     Abys.      (13th 

century),  301 
King-Tsing,    Syr.    priest   in    China 

(781),  107 
Kirakos     (Kyriakos)     I,     Kath.    of 

Arm.  (1441-1443),  416 
Knuma  (hypostasis),  85,  137 
Komos,  Abys.  title,  31 1-3 12 
Kona,  Bp.  of  Edessa  (313),  32 
Kosmas     Indikopleustes,     traveller 

(6th  century),  104,  299,  360 
Kottayam,  College,  366,  370 
Ktisolatrai  and  Aktisnetai,   Mono- 
physite sects,  207 
Kudasha,  Nest,  name  for  Anaphora, 

153 
Kudshanis,  residence  of  Nest.  Kath., 

100,  127 
Kummus,  Copt,  title,  257-258 
Kurdistan,  Christianity  in,  100,  108, 

50 
Kurds  and  Nest.,  116-117 
Kurrah  ibn  Sharik,  Amir  of  Egypt 

(8th  century),  229 
Kutmarus,  Copt,  book,  277 
Kyana,  (nature),  85,  137 
Kyrion,  Kath.  of  Iberia  (609),  413- 

414 

Labib,  Gladios,  Copt,  278 

Lak  mara,  Nest,  prayer,  149 

Lamaism  in  Tibet,  109 

Latin  influence  in  Arm.,   388-389, 

415-416,  434-436,  438,  442,  444 
Layard,  A.  H.,  explorer,  115 
Lazarus  of  Pharbi,  Arm.  historian, 

395 
Leaven,  holy,  Jac,  348,  n.  3  ;   Nest., 

150 
Lelya,  Jac.  office,  351 


INDEX 


461 


Leo  I,  Pope  (440-461),  170  ;    tome, 

172 
Leo  II,  Pope  (682-683),  212 
Leo  I,  Emp.  (457-474),  185-186 
Leo  I,  Baron  of  Sis  (11 29-1 139),  388 
Leo  II,   Kg.  of  Arm.   (1185-1219), 

389,  416 
Leo  IV  (or  V),  Kg.  of  Arm.  (1320- 

1342),  390 
Leo  V  (or  VI),  Kg.  of  Arm.  (1374- 

1375)..  390 
Leontius    of    Csesarea    ordains    St. 

Gregory  Ilium,  (c.  302),  399 
Lerubna     (Labubna)      of     Edessa, 

writer,  31,  397,  n.  1 
Letter  of  Christ  to  Abgar,  30 
Liturgical  scholars,  Jac.  school,  331 
Liturgy,    Abys.,    315-317  ;      Arm., 

441-445  ;    Copt.,  281-285  ;    Jac, 

345-351  ;   Mai.,  378  ;   Nest.,  149- 

156 
Louis    IX,    Kg.    of   France    (1226- 

1270),  242 

Macaulay,  Col.,   Brit.  Resident  at 

Travancore,  362 
Macedonius  II,  Ptr.  of  Ctple.  (496- 

5ii)»  195 
Mackenzie,  G.  T.,  Brit.  Resident  at 

Malabar,  368,  n.  1 
Maclean,  A.  J.,  missionary  to  Nest., 

118 
Madagh,  Arm.  sacrifice,  441 
Madbkha,  Jac.  name  for  sanctuary, 

344 
Mafrian,    Jac.    title,    340,    328-329, 

333.  337  ;   in  Mai.,  372,  n.  3 
Magdala  in  Abys.,  293 
Magnesia,  battle  of  (b.c.  190),  21 
Mahdi,  Khalif  (775-785),  93 
Maiferkat    (Martyropolis) ,    east    of 

the  Tigris,  46-47 
Mailapur  by  Madras  (St.  Thomas's 

martyrdom),  354,  361 ;  cross,  361— 

362 
Makeda,  Queen  of  Sheba,  308 
Makin  Al-Makin,  Moslem  historian 

(fi275),  215 
Makrlzi,  Moslem  historian  (f  1441), 

215,  n.  1,  224,  231,  235,  243,  246- 

247,  249,  260 


Malabar,  land,  367-368  ;  statistics, 
374-375  i  faith,  376  ;  a  Nest. 
mission,  356-358,  104  ;  Mono- 
physism,  365  ;  relations  with 
Copts,  229,  364 

Malayalam  language,  371;  Bible,  369 

Malech,  N.  G.,  Lutheran  and  Nest., 
119,  121-122 

Malpan,  Mai.  name  for  "  teacher," 

37° 
Mamluk  Sultans  of  Egypt   (1250- 

1517),  244-247,  249 
Manichaeism,  4  ;   in  India,  359 
Ma'nu,  Kg.  of  Edessa,  31 
Manuel  of  Mamikon,   Kg.  of  Arm. 

(378-385),  386 
Mar,  Syr.  title,  39,  n.  2 
Mar    Thomas    Christians    at    Mai., 

374-375 
Maraba  I,  Kath.  of  East  (540-552), 

82-83,  88 
Maraba  II,  Kath.  of  East  (742-752), 

104 
Marcian,  Emp.  (450-457),  175-176, 

1 80-1 8 1 
Marco     Polo,     Venetian     traveller 

(t  c  1324),  105,  361 
Marganitha,     Jac.     name     for    the 

Blessed  Sacrament,  350 
Mari,  Ap.  of    Persia,  38-39  ;    Acta 

Maris,  38 
Mari,  Ibas's  letter  to,  76,  202 
Mark,  St.,  lit.,  276,  281 
Mark   IV,    Copt.  Ptr.   (1348-1363), 

301 
Mark  ibn  al-Kanbar,  Copt,  sectary, 

241-242,  334 
Markabta  of  the  Arabs,  Syn.  (424), 

50 
Maronites,  95,  212 
Marriage,   Abys.,   320-321  ;     Copt., 

279  ;    Nest.,  157-158 
Married  bps.  in  Arm.,  401 
Martin  I,  Pope  (649-655),  21 1-2 12 
Martyrs,    Copt.,    247  ;     in    Persia, 

45-47,  5o,  52 
Martyrs,  Era  of  (Copt.),  286 
Marutha,    Bp.    of    Maiferkat    (5th 

century),  46-48,  135 
Marutha,     Bp.     of     Tagrith,     Jac. 

Mafrian  (7th  century),  329 


462 


THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 


Marwan  II,  Khalif  (744-750),  230 
Masalians,  sect,  89 
Mashdotz,  Arm.  book,  439 
Massacres,  Arm.,  392-394 
Matewos,  Abuna  of  Abys.,  3 10-3 11 
Mattai,   Mar,    Jac.    monastery,    43, 

329,  33o 
Matthew  II  (Izmirlian),  Arm.  Kath., 

43o 
Matthew  Athanasius,  Reformed  bp. 

at  Mai.  (11877),  370,  373~374 
Maurice,  Emp.  (582-602),  and  Arm., 

386 
Maximian,  Bp.  of  Ctple.  (431-434), 

65 
Maximus,   Abbot  at  Ctple.    (f662), 

211-212 
Mazdaeism,    21    24-25,    41,    91  ;     in 

Arm.,  397 
Meguerditsh,       Prot.      Arm.       bp. 

(•(•1904),  420 
Melkite,    meaning    of    name,    184- 

185  ;     Patriarchs  of  Alexandria, 

221-223 
Melius,  Elias,  Chaldaean  bp.  at  Mai. 

(1876),  371-372 
Memnon,  Bp.  of  Ephesus  (431),  63, 

65 
Menelek  I,  Kg.  of  Abys.,  308 
Menelek  II,  Kg.  of  Abys.  (1889),  308 
Mennas,    Ptr.  of   Ctple.   (536-552), 

203 
Mercurius,  St.,  church  at  Cairo,  234, 

236,  257,  268-269 
Meropius  of  Tyre  (4th  century),  294 
Meruzanes,  Arm.  bp.  (3rd  century), 

397 
Mesrob,  St.,  Arm.  bp.  (4th  century), 

408-409,  394 
Metran,  Mai.  form  for  Metropolitan, 

37° 
Metran's  party  (Mai.),  371-374 
Metrodorus,  traveller  (4th  century), 

294 
Metropolitan,  of  India  (Mai.),  359- 

360,   363,   368  ;     Jac.   Mtr.,   341  ; 

Nest.,  131-132 
Metshetshia  Warkye,  Abys.  general, 

304 
Michael  I,  Copt.  Ptr.  (743-766),  231, 

306 


Michael  IV,  Copt.  Ptr.  (1092-1102), 

237 
Michael  I,  Jac.  Ptr.  (1166-1199), 

329-330,  241,  323,  n.  1,  332 
Michael    of    Gawikath,    Jac.    Ptr. 

(1283),  333 
Millah    (millet),    "  nation  "    under 

Moslem  rule,  20,  226,  249 
Missions,  Nest.,  103-110,  356-359 
Missions    to    Abys.,    303-304  ;     to 

Arm.,    419-420  ;     to    Jac,    335- 

336  ;   to  Mai.,  366-367,  369-37°  ; 

to  Nest.,  1 17-126 
Mithridates   I,    Parthian   kg.    (b.c 

175-138),  21 
Mitre,     Arm.,     434-436  ;       Copt., 

273  ;    Jac,  345 
Mobed,  Mazdaean  priest,  24 
Mohammed    (f632),    26  ;     protects 

Chr.,  92  ;    learns  from  Nest.,  92, 

n.  4 
Monasteries,  Jac,  341 
Monasticism,    Abys.,    312  ;     Arm., 

408,  431  ;     Copt.,  257-258,  229- 

230  ;      Jac,     341  ;      Mai.,     375  ; 

Nest.,  110-113,  135  ;  in  Persia,  43 
Mongols,    97  ;     in   Arm.,    389  ;     see 

Tatars 
Monks,  Copt.,  as  missionaries,  297- 

298 
Monophysism,       164,       54  ;        and 

Apollinarism,  59  ;    reason  of  the 

movement,  182-184  ;    sects,  206- 

208  ;     in    Abys.,    298-299,    302, 

318-319  ;     Arm.,    411-414,    424- 

426  ;  Copt.,  259-261  ;  Jac,  342  ; 

Mai.,  360,  376-377  ;   Nubia,  305 
Monotheletism,     209-213 ;     among 

Nest.,  95,  97 
Mosaic,  Copt.,  268 
Moses   of   Khoren,    Arm.   historian 

(5th  century),  396,  400 
Moslem    conquest    of    Arm.,    386- 

387 ;  gf  Syria,  26,  327 ;    missions 

in  Abys.,  304 
Mshihazka,     Nest,     historian     (6th 

century),  39,  40,  41 
Mu'izz  (Al-Mu'izz),  Fatimid  Khalif, 

in  Egypt  (953~975).  233 
Mukaukis,  betrayer  of  Egypt  (639), 

224 


INDEX 


463 


Music  in  church,  Abys.,  318  ;  Arm., 
441  ;  Copt.,  285-286  ;  Mai.,  378  ; 
Nest.,  149,  n.  3 

Names  of  Eastern  Churches,  7-10 
Napoleon  I  conquers  Egypt  (1798), 

250 
Narse  the  Leper,  Nest,  writer  (1507), 

82 
Nasara,  Christians  (sc.  Nest.)  under 

Abbasid  Khalifs,  92 
National  Churches,  447-448 
Natir  kursi  (Nest.),  130,  132 
/Nature  and  Person,  57,  68-70,  73, 

172  ;    Arm.,  412,  425 
Nau,  F.,  67 
Nazarites  (Nest.),  130 
Neale,  J.  M.,  122,  215 
Negus,  title  of  Kg.  of  Abys.,  308, 

293,  298 
Nehawand,    battle    of     (642),     26, 

9i 

Nekam,  Copt,  martyr  (nth  century), 
236 

Nerses  I,  Arm.  Kath.  (f  c.  374), 
406-407,  402 

Nerses  II,  Arm.  Kath.  (548-557), 
412-413 

Nestorianism,  59-60,  62,  68-72  ;  re- 
action against  Apollinarism,  59 

Nestorians,  name,  128-129  ;  geo- 
graphy, 126-127  ;  statistics,  128  ; 
influence  among  Moslems,  93,  96  ; 
chief  Chr.  community  at  Bagdad, 
93  ;  Canon  law,  135-136  ;  Chris- 
tology,    137  ;    at  Mai.,   359,   372, 

375 
Nestorius,  Bp.  of  Ctple.  (428-431), 

54,  61-65  ;    as  a  Saint,  84,  148 
Nestorius,  lit.  of,  151-152 
Nicaea,     Syn.     (325)  ;      Arm.     bp. 

present,  401,  443,  n.  1  ;    Persian 

bp.,  43,  n.  6  ;    ace.  in  Persia,  48  ; 

forged  Canons  (Copt.),  300 
Nicholas  IV,  Pope  (1288-1292),  and 

Rabban  Sauma,  99 
Nicholas  I,  Orth.  Ptr.  of  Alexandria 

(13th  century),  239 
Nicholas   I,    Russian   Emp.    (1825- 

1855),  and  Arm.,  420 
"  Nine  Saints  "  (Abys.),  297-298 


Ninevites,  Fast  of,  Arm.,  438,  n.  5  ; 
Copt.,  287  ;   Jac,  351  ;  Nest.,  148 

Niobists,  Monophysite  sect,  208 

Nisibis,  26,  35  ;  centre  of  Chris- 
tianity in  Persia,  39-40,  47  ;  theo- 
logical school,  79,  82 

Nomocanon  of  Ebedjesus  (Nest.), 
136 

Nonnus,  Bp.  of  Edessa  (457),  77 

Notables  (Nest.),  101 

Nubia,  Christianity  in,  304-307 

Nuns,  Abys.,  312 ;  Arm.,  432,  n.  1  ; 
Copt.,  258  ;   Jac,  341  ;  Nest.,  135 

Olopun,  Nest,  missioner  in  China 

(781),  107-108 
Omaiyad  ('Umaiyah)  Khalifs,  25 
"  One  nature  incarnate,"  59,  165 
Ordination,  rite,  Abys.,  311  ;   Arm., 

428  ;   Copt.,  279-280  ;    Jac,  337- 

338  ;    Nest.,  157 
Ordination,    sacrament   and   sacra- 
mental     (re-ordination),      Arm., 

428,  431  ;   Copt.,  280,  n.  3  ;    Jac, 

337  ;   Nest.,  135 
Ordination  by  letter  or  dead  hand, 

Mai.,  364-365  and  n.   1  ;    Arm., 

416-417 
Ordination     involves     jurisdiction, 

37,  n.   1,   131,  255,  299-300,  309, 

311,  338,  404 
Orthodox  and  Arm.,  421  ;  in  Abys., 

304  ;      Egypt,    249-250  ;     Syria, 

326-327 
Osmanli  (Ottoman)  Turks,  27,  248  ; 

and  Arm.,  390 
Osroene,  kingdom,  22,  28 
Owang  Khan   (Unk  Khan),  Prince 

of  Tenduk  (nth  century),  105 

Pacomius,  St.  (c  300),  275 
Paganism  in  Arm.,  396,  n.  9,  401 
Painting,  Coptic,  268-269 
Palakomatta  family  at  Mai.,   363, 

365 
Palmyra  (Tadmur),  22 
Palut,  Bp.  of  Edessa,  31,  33 
Pantaenus  of  Alexandria  (f  c.  200), 

356 
Pap,   Kg.  of  Arm.    (367-374).   4°7> 

386 


464        THE  LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 


Papa  Bar  'Aggai,  Bp.  of  Seleucia- 
Ctesiphon  (f  c.  327),  39,  41 
v  Papacy  and  Eastern  Churches,  12, 
254,  n.  1  ;  Arm.,  406,  427  ;  at 
Chalcedon,  176-177  ;  Copts,  261- 
262  ;   Nest.,  139 

Parsis,  24 

Parthians,  21,  23  ;   in  Arm.,  387 

Parties  in  Syr.  in  5th  century,  74-75 

Patriarch,  title  in  Arm.,  403,  408  ; 
title  of  Kath.  of  East,  51,  88,  96 

Patriarch  of  Aquileia  -  Grado 
(Venice),  205-206  ;  Copt.,  elec- 
tion and  rights,  254-256  ;  ordina- 
tion, 279  ;    Jac,  337-34° 

"  Patriarch's    Party,"     Mai.,     371, 

373,  374 

Paul,  Orth.  Ptr.  of  Alexandria  (539- 
541),  220 

Paulicians,  4,  89 

Perkins,  J.,  Presbyterian  missionary 
to  Nest.  (1834),  117 

Persecution  of  Arm.  by  Russia,  421, 
428  ;  Copt.,  227-232,  234-236, 
243,  246-247  ;  Jac,  333  ;  in 
Persia,    45-47,    50,    52,    83,    90, 

93-94 
Persia,  second  kingdom,  21  ;  third 

kingdom,     23  ;       modern     state, 

28  ;     conversion,    38-39  ;     Arm. 

in,  387  ;    Jac,  328-329 
Persians  in  Arm.,  386,  390 
Persis  (Pares),  Bp.  of  (Nest.),  104 
Person    (Prosopon),  57,  68  ;     (Par- 

sufa),  85,  95,  137  ;    see  Nature 
Peter  the   Fuller,  Ptr.   of   Antioch 

(f488),  190-194 
Peter  Kallunlkya,   Jac.  Ptr.    (578- 

59i),  334 
Peter  Mongos,   Ptr.   of  Alexandria 

(f49o),  192-195,  218-219 
Peter  III,  Copt.  Ptr.  (567-570),  220 
Phainolion,  Arm.  434  ;    Copt.  273  ; 

Nest.,  147 
Pharen      (Pharnerseh),      Kath.     of 

Arm.  (4th  century),  401 
Philip    IV,    Kg.    of   France    (1285- 

13 14),  and  Rabban  Sauma,  99 
Philoxenos      (Xenaias,      Aksnaya), 

Jac.    Bp.    of    Hierapolis    (1523), 

196-197,  140 


Phthartolatrai,    Monophysite    sect, 

207,  219 
Physis,  68-69  ;   see  Nature 
Piruz,  Kg.  of  Persia  (459-484),  79, 

81,  46 
Pnuthiun  (Arm.  term),  412 
"  Polojenye  "  law,  Russian  (1836), 

420 
Polygamy    in    Arm.,    402  ;     Abys., 

301,  320-321 
Pope,  title  of  Copt.  Ptr.,  255 
Porphyrius,  Ptr.  of  Antioch  (404- 

413),  48 
Portuguese  in  Abys.,  302  ;  in  India, 

354-355.  363-364 
Presbyterian  missions  to  Arm.,  419  ; 

Copts.,    258 ;    Jac,  335  ;    Nest., 

117,  120 
Prester  John,  105-106,  300 
Priest,  Nest.,  134  ;   see  Hierarchy 
'Procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  Arm., 

426 ;     Copt.,    261  ;     Jac,    342  ; 

Nest.,  138-139 
Proclus,  Bp.  of  Ctple.  (434-447),  166 
Proterius,  Ptr.  of  Alexandria  (451- 

457),  184-186,  218 
Protestant  missions,  to  Abys.,  303  ; 

Arm.,     419-420 ;      Copt.,     258  ; 

Jac,    335-336  ;     Mai.,    366-367, 

369-370  ;    Nest.,  120-126 
Pulcheria,  Empress  (f453),  175 
Purgatory,  Arm.,  427  ;    Copt.,  263  ; 

Jac,  343  ;   Nest.,  139 

Rabban         Hurmizd,        Chaldaean 

monastery,  135 
Rabban     Sauma,     Nest,     traveller 

(1287-1288),  98-99 
Rabbula,  Bp.  of  Edessa  (412-435), 

75-76 
Ramsha,  Jac.    office,    351 ;     Nest., 

141-142 
Ras,  Abys.  title,  308 
Rayah  (ra'iyah),  Chr.  under  Moslem 

rule,  19,  92  ;   see  Dimmi 
Reformed  Church  at  Mai.,  371,  374- 

375 
Reforming     movement     in     Copt. 

Church,  258 
Relics,  Arm.,  426  ;  Copt.,  264,  270  ; 

Nest.,  138 


INDEX 


465 


Renaudot,  E.,  215 

Reservation  of  the  Holy  Eucharist, 

Abys.,  314  ;    Arm.,  440  ;    Copt., 

286  ;    Nest.,  156 
Rhestakes,  see  Aristakes 
Rhima,    Nest.    Bp.    of   Arbela    (6th 

century),  82 
Rich,  C.  J.,  traveller  (1820),  115 
Richards,  W.  J.,  C.M.S.  missionary 

at  Mai.,  369 
Rite,  language,  religion,  343-344 
Rites,  Copt.,  252  ;    see  Liturgy,  etc. 
Rival  lines  of  bishops,  216-217 
Roman    conquest    of    Arm.,    386 ; 

Syr.,  23 
Roman  primacy  at  Edessa,  38  ;   see 

Papacy 
Ruben  (Ruwil),  Nest.  Kath.  (fi903), 

131 
Rupen,  Baron  of  Sis  (1080),  388 
Russia    conquers    Arm.,    390-391  ; 

relations    with    Arm.,    420-428  ; 

see  Persecution  ;   mission  to  Nest., 

119 

Sa'ad,  Bp.  of  Edessa  (c.  323),  32 
Sa'aura  (Chorepiskopos),  Nest.,  134 
►•Sacraments,     Arm.,     426  ;      Copt., 

262  ;    Jac,  342  ;    Nest.,  138 
Safra,  Jac.  office,  351  ;    Nest.,  142 
Sahak   (Isaac)   I,  Arm.   Kath.   (f  c. 

442),  408 
Saints,  cult  and  intercession,  Abys., 

318  ;     Arm.,    426  ;     Copt.,    264  ; 

Jac,    343  ;     Mai.,    376  ;     Nest., 

138,  154 
Saladin,    Sultan    of    Egypt    (1169- 

ii93).  239-240 
Samarcand,  Christianity  at,  105 
Samson,  Bp.  of  Arbela  (fi23),  40 
Sassanid  Kgs.  of  Persia,  23,  91,  386 
Sasun,  massacres  (1894),  393 
Sa'iid,  see  Sulaka 
Sauma,     Rabban,     Nest,     traveller 

(1287-1288),  98-99 
Sbaryeshu'  I,  Nest.  Kath.  (596-604), 

90 
Sbaryeshu'  III,  Nest.  Kath.  (1057- 

1072),  105 
Schism,    Acacian    (484-519),     193- 

199  ;    of  the  Persian  Church,  51  ; 


of  the  Three  Chapters  (554-700), 

205 
Schism  and  autonomy,  410 
Scribes,  Copt.,  227  ;    Nest.,  93 
Sedra,  Jac.  prayer,  348 
See  of  Arm.  Primate,  403,  409-410, 

415  ;   of  Nest.  Kath.,  49,  96,  100 
Seleucia-Ctesiphon,   20,   41  ;     taken 

by  Moslems  (635),  91  ;  Metropolis 

of    Persian    Church,    41-42,    48  ; 

Syn.  (c.  315),  41  ;    Syn.  (410),  48  ; 

Syn.  (486),  81 
Seleucid     Kingdom,     20-21  ;      con- 
quered by  Arm.  (b.c.  86),  385 
Seleukos  Nikator,  Kg.  of  Syria  (b.c. 

312-281),  20 
Selguk  (Seljuk)  Turks,  27,  233-234, 

244;    conquer  Arm.,  387 
Selim    I,    Ottoman    Sultan    (1512- 

1520),  248 
Semantron,  Copt.,  270-271  ;    Nest., 

142 
Semites  in  Mesopotamia,  18 
Serapion,    Ptr.    of  Antioch    (190-c. 

211),  31 
Sergius  I,  Ptr.  of  Ctple.  (610-638), 

209 
Sergius  of  Telia,  Jac.  Ptr.  (543-546), 

325 
Severus,    Ptr.    of    Antioch    (f538), 

196-199,   201  ;     his  heresy,   206- 

207,  219,  425  ;    a  Jac.  Saint,  260 

287,  325 
Severus    of    Al-Ushmunain,    Copt. 

historian,  214 
Severus,  Abuna  of  Abys.,  301 
Shagar-addiirr     (Tree     of     Pearls), 

Queen     in     Egypt     (1250-1257), 

244 
Shahak,  Arm.  Kath.  (4th  century), 

401-402 
Shahra,  Nest,  office,  142 
Shahrastani,  Moslem  writer  ({1153), 

96,  33i 
Shaihu-lbilad  in  Egypt,  248 
Shapur  I,  Kg.  of  Persia  (241-272), 

40 
Shapur  II,  Kg.  of  Persia  (309-379), 

44-47 
Shenut    (Sanutius)    II,    Copt.    Ptr. 
(1032-1047),  235 

30 


466   THE  'LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 


Shi'ah  Moslems,  232 

Shim'un  (Simon),  Mar,  name  of 
Nest.  Kath.,  102,  130  ;  position, 
authority,  etc.,  129-132  ;  see  also 
Simon 

Shirin,  wife  of  Chosroes  II,  329 

Shliha,  Nest,  book,  143 

Sighelm  (Suithelm),  Bp.  of  Shire- 
burn,  and  Mai.  (883),  361 

Simon  I,  Copt.  Ptr.  (689-701),  360 

Simon    Bar    Mama,     Nest.     Kath. 

(fi55i).  IGI 
Simon  Bar  Sabba'e,  Kath.  of  East 

(t34i),  41-42,  45-46 
Simon  Denha,  Nest.   Kath.   (1551), 

101-102 
Simon  Stylites,  St.  (432),  73 
Simon,  Mtr.  of  Yakut  (7th  century), 

104,  360 
Simplicius,  Pope  (463-468),  193 
Si-ngan-fu,   Nest,   monument,   106— 

108 
Sis,  capital  of  Cilician  Armenia,  388, 

410  ;    patriarchate,  415-417,  430 
Sixtus  III,  Pope  (432-440),  73 
Slave-Sultans  (Mamluks)  in  Egypt, 

244-246 
Slibazka,  Nest.  Kath.  (714-726),  106 
Slutha  dlilya,   slutha  dsafra,  Nest. 

offices,  142 
Socotra,    Nest,    in,    104-105,    108  ; 

St.  Thomas,  354 
Solitaries  in  Persia,  43 
"  Son  of  the  Covenant,"  43 
Sophene,     kingdom     (2nd     century 

b.c),  385 
Sophronius,  Ptr.  of  Jerusalem  (634- 

638),  210,  222 
Spelling  of  names,  vi-viii 
Standing  for  prayer,  Copt.,  285 
Stephen    III,    Arm.     Kath.     (969- 

971),  415 
Stephen  Niobes,  Monophysite  sect- 
ary, 208 
Suba/a,  Nest,  office,  142 
Substance,  meaning  of  term,  68 
Sulaka,     John     (Sa'iid),     Chaldaean 

Ptr.  (fi555).  101,  129 
Sultan,  title,  240,  n.  1 
Sunhadaus,  Nest,  book,  136 
Suttara,  Jac.  office,  351 


Synaxar,  Copt,  book,  277,  283 
Synod,  Arm.  permanent,  428 
Synods     acknowledged     by     Arm., 

414,  n.  7  ;   by  Nest.,  135 
Syria,  18;  not  a  homogeneous  land, 

326-327  ;    Arm.  conquest,  385 
Syriac    language,    18  ;     spoken    by 

Nest.,     1 1 5-1 1 6,     149  ;      at    Tur 

'Abdln,  336;  in  Mai.,  359,  368,  378 
Syrian  influence  in  Arm.,  408-409  ; 

missions  in  India,  356,  358-359 

Tabot  (Abys.),  314-315 

Tadmur  (Palmyra),  22 

Tagrith  on  the  Tigris,  seat  of  Jac. 
Mafrian,  329 

Takla  Haimanot,  Abys.  St.  (c.  620), 
312 

Taksa,  meaning  "  rite  "  (Syr.),  142  ; 
Taksa,  dhusaya,  d'mada,  draza, 
dsyamida,  Nest,  books,  142-143 

Tamuza,  Bp.  of  Seleucia  (4th 
century),  47 

Tarsus  in  Cilicia,  Arm.  coronation 
(1199),  389 

Tatars  (Tartars,  Mongols),  27,  97  ; 
in  Arm.,  387 

Tatian  (2nd  century),  34-35 

Tattam,  H.,  Coptic  scholar,  258,  n.  3 

Temelaya,  ("  general  "),  Jac.  metro- 
politans, 340 

Temple  of  Solomon  (Abys.  churches), 

313 
Thaddaeus,  St.,  Ap.  of  Arm.,  397  ; 

for  Addai,  31 
Themistios,    Monophysite    sectary, 

and  Themistians  (Agnoetai),  207, 

219 
Theodora,     Empress     (t548),     200- 

201,  324 
Theodore  Askidas,  Mtr.  of  Caesarea 

(553),  202,  204 
Theodore,  Copt.  (Gainite)  Ptr.  (727- 

c.  738),  361 
Theodore,    Bp.   of  Mopsuestia,   the 
"  Interpreter"  (f428),  60-61 ;  (Three 

Chapters),    202  ;     a    Nest.  Saint, 

84  ;    his  lit.  (Nest.),  151-152 
Theodoret,  Bp.  of  Cyrus  (423-458), 

166,  169,  178,  180;    (Three  Chap- 
ters), 202 


INDEX 


467 


Theodosius  I,  Emp.  (379-395),  and 

Arm.,  386 
Theodosius     II,     Emp.     (408-450), 

63,  73.  167,  170,  172,  175 
Theodosius,    Copt.    Ptr.    (538-567), 

219-220 
Theodosius,    Monophysite    Ptr.     of 

Jerusalem  (452),  188-189,  324 
Theopaschites,    Monophysite    sect, 

191,  201 
Theophilus  of  Diu,  Arian  missionary 

(4th  century),  356-357 
Theotokia,    Copt,    office,    277-278  ; 

Abys.,  315,  n.  3 
Theotbkos  (Mother  of  God),  title  of 

the  B.V.M.,   60,   62,   69,    74,    77, 

85-86,  137,  178,  262 
Thomas,   St.,  Apostle,   31  ;    Ap.  of 

India,  354~356 
Thomas  Athanasius,  Reformed   bp. 

at  Mai.,  371,  374 
Thomas    "  Cannaneo,"    Mai.     mis- 
sionary, 357,  362,  377,  n.  2 
Thomas    of    Jerusalem,    missionary 

to  India,  357 
Thomas,  Manichaean  missionary  in 

India,  359 
Thomas  of  Marga,  Nest,    historian 

(c.  840),  112 
Thomas  Palakomatta,  Jac.  Mtr.  at 

Mai.  (1665),  364-365,  367 
Thoros    (Theodore),    Baron    of    Sis 

(1141-1168),  389 
Thortan    in    Arm.,     tomb    of    St. 

Gregory  Ilium.,  399 
"  Three    Chapters  "     of     Justinian 

(544),    202  ;     strife   about    them, 

202-206 
Tibet,  religion,  109 
Tigranes,  see  Dikran 
Tigre     Mountains      (Abys.),      299  ; 

dialect,  308 
Tigrinya  dialect  (Abys.),  308 
Timothy   the   Cat    (Ailuros),    Copt. 

Ptr.  (f479),  186-187,  218;    Copt. 

Saint,  287 
Timothy  Salophakiolos,  Orth.   Ptr. 
of      Alexandria       (t48i),       187, 

218 
Timothy  II,  Copt.  Patr.  (520-536), 
219 


Timothy  I,  Ptr.  of  Ctple.  (51 1-5 18), 

195 
Timothy  I,  Nest.  Kath.  (779-823), 

94-96,  38,  360 
Timothy,     Nest.     bp.     at     Trichur 

(1907),  372 
Timur  Leng,  Mongol  chief  (11405), 

100,  108 
Tiran  II,  Kg.  of  Arm.  (325-341  ?), 

406 
Tiridates  (Arm.),  see  Trdat 
Tiridates,  Parthian  chief  (3rd  cen- 
tury B.C.),  21 
Titus     Mar     Thomas     I     and     II, 

Reformed    bps.    in    Travancore, 

374 
Tiufik  school  at  Cairo,  258 
Tovin,  see  Duin 
Trajan,  Emp.   (98-117),   and  Arm., 

386 
Travancore,  State  in  India,  368,  374 
Trdat   (Tiridates)   II,   Kg.    of   Arm. 

(261-314  ?),  397-399,  386,  395 
Trebizond,    Arm.    massacre    (1895), 

393 
Trichur  in  India,  Nest,  body,  372, 

374 
Trisagion  with  Monophysite  clause, 

190-192,    197,    201  ;     Arm.,    412, 

426,  442,  n.  5  ;    Copt.,  283,  289  ; 

Jac,  348 
Tritheists,  Monophysite  sect,  208 
Tshunak,   anti-Kath.  in  Arm.    (4th 

century),  407 
Tugril   Beg,    Turkish   Amir    (1055), 

233 
Tuman     Beg,     Sultan     of     Egypt 

(fi5i7),  248 
Tur  '  Abdin,  district  in  Mesopotamia, 

336,  338,  341 
Turanians,  384,  n.  1 
Turgama,  Nest,  book,  143 
Turks,  27  ;  Ottoman,  248  ;   conquer 

Arm.,     390  ;      Selguk,     233-234  ; 

conquer  Arm.,  390 
Typos  of  ConstansII  (648),  211 

'Ubaidullah,  Fatimid  Khalif  (893), 

232-233 
Uniates,   4,   239,   448-449  ;    Abys., 

302-303  ;     Arm.,    388-389,    414- 


468 


THE   LESSER   EASTERN   CHURCHES 


415,    419  ;     Chaldaean,    101-103, 

125,   127,   129-130  ;    Copt.,  239  ; 

Jac,    336,    339;     Mai!,    363-365, 

353,  367,  37i,  374 
v'  Union  of  natures  in  Christ,  69-70 
Unity  among  Eastern  Churches,  3, 

10-12 
Unk     (Owang)     Khan,     Prince     of 

Tenduk  (nth  century),  105 
Urfa,  Urhai,  see  Edessa 
Urmi  in  Persia  (Nest.),  100,  102,  118 
'Usamah  ibn  Zaid,  Amir  of  Egypt 

(8th  century),  230 

Vahan  I,  Arm.  Kath  (967-969),  415 
Valarshapat,    old   capital   of  Arm., 

398-399,   403,   409  ;     Syn.    (491), 

412  ;    see  Etshmiadzin 
Valens,  Emp.  (364-378),  and  Arm., 

386 
Van     in     Arm.,     118,     126,     430  ; 

kingdom,  415  ;    massacre  (1896), 

394 
Varkas,  Arm.  vestment,  434 
Vartapet,     Arm.     title,     431,     428, 

436 
Vasco  da  Gama,   Portuguese  sailor 

(1498),  353.  363 
Venice,  Ptr.  of,  205-206 
Vestments,     Abys.,      315  ;       Arm., 

434-436  ;    Copt.,  271-274  ;    Jac, 

344-345  ;    Mai.,   378,   372,  n.   1  ; 

Nest.,  147 
Vidvan  Kutti  (Justus  Joseph),  Mai. 

sectary,  375 
Vigilius,  Pope  (54°-555),  201-205 
Vrthanes  (Bardanes),  Kath.  of  Arm., 

399,  4°i 

Wahl,  R.,  Anglican  missionary  to 

Nest.  (1881-1885),  118 
Warda,  Nest,  book,  143 
Water,     blessing     of     Arm.,     441  ; 

Copt.,  287-288  ;  see  Holy  Water 
Water  not  used  in  Arm.  chalice,  442 
Wazir  (Vizier),  title,  240,  n.  1 


"  Western  Fathers,"  in  Persia,   41, 

47-48,  5i 
"  Western  Synods  "  (Nest.),  135 
Will  of  Christ,  2 10-2  n 
Wine  in  Copt,  lit.,  282 
Wolff,  J.,  traveller  (c.  1820),  117 

Xenaias,  see  Philoxenus 

Yaballaha  I,  Kath.  of  East  (415- 

420),  50 
Yaballaha  III,  Nest.  Kath.   (1281- 

1317),  97-98,  100,  332 
Yakut,  Nest.  Mtr.  of  (7th  century), 

104 
Yarmuk,  battle  of  (634),  26,  327 
Yazdagird   I,    Kg.   of  Persia   (399- 

420),  47,  50 
Yazdagird  II,  Kg.  of    Persia  (438- 

457),  52 
Yazdagird  III,  Kg.  of  Persia  (632- 

651),  9i 
Yekuno  Amlak,  Kg.  of  Abys.  (1268), 

300,  299,  n.  3 
Yeshu'yab    II,    Nest.     Kath.    (628 

643),  90-91,  104,  360 
Yoyomayans,  sect  at  Mai.,  375 
Yusik  I,  Arm.  Kath  (4th  century), 

401,  406 
Yusik  II,  Arm.  Kath.  (4th  century), 

407 

Zachary     of     Aghthamar,      Arm. 

Kath.  (1461),  417 
Zaitun,  massacre  (1896),  394 
Zariadris,    Arm.     Kg.    of    Sophene 

(b.c.  190),  385 
Zeno,  Emp.  (474-491),  192  ;    Heno- 

tikon,  193-194  ;    closes  school  of 

Edessa,  78,  81 
Zephyrinus,  Pope  (202-218),  31,  37 
Zoilus,    Orth.    Ptr.    of    Alexandria 

(542-550),  220 
Zoroaster  (Zarathushtra),  24 
Zubaidah,  wife  of  Harun  ar-rashid, 

95 


PRINTED    BY    NEILL   AND   CO.,    LTD.,    EDINBURGH.