adhesiveness. Ages of controversy have made him an adept in judging what mud will stick, and he has a full appreciation of the power of a half-truth! Still, even in oriental controversy, regard should be paid to the probabilities, if not to the decencies; and (putting aside a few small blunders) it is simply impossible to believe that the licensing of clerical marriage should have led to the spread of open immorality, and the exposure of thousands of unacknowledged children, and the like. The only result of the wild slander of Bar-Hebræus, is to throw doubt on every statement that he makes to the discredit of his opponent.
It must also be remembered that Bar-Hebræus is a Monophysite, and writes as one. Hence, where he says Catholic or orthodox, we have to substitute the name of that heresy.
Certain broad facts, however, stand out as true. Thus it appears that after the death of Babowai, Bar-soma organized the Church on a footing of separation from, not merely independence of, the Westerns. Piroz of course approved. It was obviously to his interest that his Christian subjects should be separated from those of Rome, and no doubt he threw the weight of royal influence on Bar-soma's side. As the "Henoticon" of Zeno had recently been published (these events took place 482–484), and the Church of the Roman Empire was officially Monophysite, to make an official confession of the "two Natures in Christ"—which to Bar-Hebræus was "Nestorianism"—was to separate from them—and this was done.
There can be little doubt that the great mass of Christians in Persia were on Bar-soma's side in what he did. Bar-Hebræus of course declares that they were "dragooned" into it; but, putting aside the fact that Assyrian Christians were not wont to be very pliant under persecution, does the work of
