The Lesser Eastern Churches/Chapter 1

by Adrian Henry Timothy Knottesford Fortescue

 

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, condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. These two heresies account for all the other separated Eastern Churches, besides the 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. Manichæism 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, Paulicians, 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.^[2] 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, Monophysites) 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^[3] 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 understand all that, and like them the better for being consistent. But 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 Christians. 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. Nestorianism 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 Church; meanwhile, by an astonishing revulsion, they had dealings 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^[4] 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 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 gratuitously 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.^[5] 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. 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 Chaldæan 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 Chaldæorum," 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 Monoprosopians. The Copts are so called without exception by friend and foe. The name is probably only an Arabic form of "Egyptian." What are we to call their Uniates? Uniate Copts is 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 distinguish them from the Uniates, we will add "Monophysite" or "Schismatical." The Syrian Monophysites are the Jacobites. This is a very old name, from James (Ἰάκωβος, Ya‘ḳub) 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.^[6] 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 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^[7] 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.^[8] 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 Immaculate 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"^[9] of the Orthodox. 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. Sometimes 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 unorthodox 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 hopelessly 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.^[10] So there are definite points of theology in which all agree with the Orthodox against us. Besides the questions of the Papacy and the Immaculate Conception, all 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.^[11] We say it is our Church, they say it is theirs. But what about the smaller Eastern sects? Are they logical, claiming 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 juxtaposition of all bishops with equal rights, co-ordination not subordination, which comes to very much the same thing as the famous Branch theory.^[12] 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 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 altogether 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 grievously 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;^[13] 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.^[14]

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 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 each species would have many further divisions. The Catholic species might also be divided into Latins and Uniates, these last with subdivisions. But, archæologically (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 subdivisions 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. Turning back to our first three groups: the first (the Orthodox), by far the largest and most important Eastern Church, has been discussed in the former volume. The second group (Nestorians) consists of one historically important Church. The third (Monophysites) 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 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.

 

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.
2. There will be a short appendix about the Paulicians at the end of the volume on the Uniates.
3. 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.
4. Except also, obviously, the Uniates.
5. See p. 128.
6. So Joseph Abudacnus: Historia Iacobitarum seu Coptorum (Leiden, 1740).
7. But see p. 307.
8. 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.
9. "Nebenkirchen" (Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Confessionskunde, i. 205).
10. Most the Copts, Jacobites, Armenians, less the Nestorians and Abyssinians—but these also, as we shall see.
11. Orth. Eastern Church, pp. 365–372.
12. See Lord Malachy Ormanian (ex-Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople): L'Église Arménienne (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.
13. Does this need demonstration? We want an answer to two plain questions: 1. 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.?)
14. 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.