The Lesser Eastern Churches/Chapter 2

by Adrian Henry Timothy Knottesford Fortescue

 

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 lifegiving 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 Ḥannân 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.

 

1. 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 Alexander the Great (b.c. 336–323) introduce an important new element, 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 populations 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, rayah.^[2] 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; 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 as a "nation."^[3]

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.^[4] 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 κοινή that we know best in the New Testament, became the recognized international language among educated people throughout the East Mediterranean 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 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 (Mazdæism), 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,^[5] 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 concerned 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 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 independent states. So Palmyra (Tadmur) in an oasis between Damascus and the Euphrates (c. 230-272), Ituræa in the Lebanon, the Nabatæan 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 very old city called Urhâi. 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 (Urhâi, Hellenized as Osroene^[6]) 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,^[7] the Kings of Osroene were native Syrians. Of this dynasty of kings most were named either Abgar^[8] or Ma‘nu.^[9] 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 to have been a special local cult of the Heavenly Twins.^[10] 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 Euphrates.^[11] 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 Pabēk, Satrap of Iran, rose against the Parthian king (Artaban), slew him at Hormuz on May 28, 227, and gathered up his inheritance. Ardashir^[12] (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 god Ahura Mazda and the bad god Anra Mainyu.^[13] 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.^[14] 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).^[15] "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 yazdān parast (worshipper of God). All things considered, "Mazdæism" and "Mazdæan," from the name of their god, seems the most reasonable. But we may notice that Zoroastrian, Parsi, Geber (guèbre), Magian, Fire-worshipper, all mean the same thing. I add only one or two more points about Mazdæism which cccur in connection with our story. It has most elaborate principles of ritual cleanness and defilement. The mobed wears 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, Mazdæans 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.^[16]

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 Mazdæism 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^[17] were not Mazdæans 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 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 during the first five or six centuries is this eternal struggle between 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 immediately his followers burst upon the Roman Empire in Syria and Persia. Khalid^[18] led a Moslem army against Hīra, an Arab state dependent on Persia; then under Sa‘ad Ibn Wakkās they conquered Chaldea and Mesopotamia; ten years later at Nehāwand 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 Yarmūk 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.^[19] 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 Abbās at Bagdad.^[20] This 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.^[21] There are many tribes of Turks. The civil-spoken gentlemen at Constantinople who wear French clothes and read French newspapers 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 11th century. Their Sultan^[22] Alp-Arslan invaded Asia Minor and took the Emperor Romanos prisoner in 1071. In 1092 Nicæa (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.^[23] 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 Khān,^[24] "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, Musta‘aṣim.^[25] 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 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 Mazdæans and the (Syrian) Christian Church, had evolved a Moslem heresy of their own which expressed their national feeling. The religion of Persia was Islam in the Shiah^[26] form. In 1499 a certain Ismail founded an independent Persian Shiah state, hating and continually fighting the Sunni^[27] 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.

The city of Edessa, capital of the kingdom of Osroene, is the centre from which Christianity spread through East Syria and 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,^[28] 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.^[29] 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.^[30] The text with a translation has been published by Mr G. Phillips.^[31] The story as here told is this. In the time of our Lord, Abgar Ukkama,^[32] son of Ma‘nu, was King of Edessa. He suffered from an incurable disease.^[33] Abgar sent an embassy to Sabinus, the Roman governor at Eleutheropolis in Palestine.^[34] The ambassadors were two Edessene noblemen, Mariyab and Shamshagram, with a notary, Ḥannân 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. Ḥannân 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 Ḥannân 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. Ḥannân found our Lord in the house of Gamaliel, "Chief of the Jews." Our Lord answered: "Go, tell thy master who sent thee: Happy 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."^[35] Ḥannân then painted a portrait of our Lord "in choice colours,"^[36] and brought the picture and the message to King Abgar. Abgar set up the picture in a place of honour.^[37] After Pentecost, true to our Lord's promise, 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 among Addai's converts are Aggai, jeweller and wig-maker to the king, and one Paluṭ. Addai being sick, ordains Aggai as his successor and Paluṭ 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 Paluṭ. There was no bishop in Edessa. Paluṭ 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 "Labubnâ bar-Sennaḳ, 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,^[38] 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 Thaddæus; 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 Paluṭ. Serapion of Antioch is a real person; he reigned from 190 to about 211.^[39] 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 Paluṭ 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)^[40] 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 the independent state fell in 216. By the year 201 the Christians even had a public church in the city. The Chronicle of Edessa^[41] says that in a flood which happened that year the "temple of the Christians" was destroyed.^[42] There was also a King Abgar who was a Christian; Julius Africanus^[43] went to his court.^[44] This is supposed to be Abgar VIII (176–213).^[45] 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."^[46] 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;^[47] 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.^[48] 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 Ḳonâ, who built a church in 313.^[49] He was succeeded by Sa‘ad (†c. 323–324), and after Sa'ad came Aitallâhâ. And now we are in the full light of history; for Aitallâhâ sate at Nicæa in 325.^[50] Can we conjecture anything further about the time before Ḳonâ? Mr. Burkitt, in his Early Eastern Christianity,^[51] having discussed the Abgar legend and the few historic evidences for the earliest period,^[52] makes an interesting conjecture as to what really happened. 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 successor. 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 Paluṭ. At first, maybe, there was friction between these two parties.^[53] St. Ephrem notes that at one time the Catholics were called Palutians, as if they were a new sect.^[54] However, ultimately Paluṭ 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—Paluṭ.^[55] Paluṭ's successors are said to have been ‘Abshalâmâ, then Bar-Samyâ, then Ḳonâ.^[56] During the persecution of Diocletian (284–305) and Licinius there were martyrs at Edessa. We hear of Shmunâ, Guryâ, a deacon Ḥabīb and others.^[57]

Two figures stand out in the ante-Nicene Church of Edessa—Bardesanes and Tatian. Bardesanes^[58] was born at Edessa in 154, and was educated together with King Abgar VIII (176–213). He became a Christian and afterwards^[59] 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 1166 to 1199,^[60] gives an account of his ideas which, allowing for the cloudiness of all Gnostic metaphysics, agrees well enough with this.^[61] He died in 222, and left a school.^[62] 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.^[63] He came to Rome, and was converted about the year 150; here he wrote in Greek an Apology "πρὸς Ἕλληνας".^[64] Then he went back to his own land (about 172) and settled at Edessa. Here he wrote his Diatessaron. Diatessaron (διὰ τεσσάρων) 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 (Ἐγκρατῖται), who declared marriage, wine and flesh-meat sinful.^[65] The date of his death is not known. His sect existed for some time after him, and was 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.^[66] Mr. Burkitt thinks this was introduced by Rabbulâ of Edessa (411–435; see p. 77).^[67]

After Nicæa (325, at which Aitallâhâ, Bishop of Edessa, was present), the chief figure at Edessa is St. Ephrem. Ephrem^[68] 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 Nicæa in 325. During the Persian sieges of Nisibis (338, 346, 350) he encouraged his fellow-citizens; afterwards he wrote poetic accounts of these troubles.^[69] 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 Cæsarea in Cappadocia to see St. Basil (†379), 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.^[70] 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. 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.^[71] 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 obtained authority over lesser outlying dioceses,^[72] 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 Mesopotamia. Why not? Because, at any rate in theory, they themselves 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.^[73] Edessa was certainly not in the Patriarchate of Rome or Alexandria. Antioch counted as its domain "the East" (πάση ἡ ἀνατολή), that is, the Roman prefecture so-called (Oriens).^[74] This covered Asia Minor, Thrace (Egypt), Syria, and stretched eastward as far as the Empire went.^[75] Edessa was in that prefecture. The story of Paluṭ going up to Antioch to be ordained, whether it be history or legend, is significant, as showing the idea of dependence on Antioch.^[76] 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 development, 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. Language made a difference. Antioch was mainly Greek and became more and more so, as did the cities near it in West Syria.^[77] 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 as having any connection with that of West Syria.^[78] If we use later language (never actually applied to this East Syrian Church) we may describe the Metropolitan of Edessa as the almost independent Exarch of East Syria and (at first) of Persia, having a vague dependence on the distant Patriarch of Antioch.^[79]

For the present we leave Edessa. Only we may note lastly one other point. The story of Paluṭ'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).^[80] But that does not matter. The meaning of the legend is clear. Edessa was conscious of a throne in the far West, still greater than Antioch, and wanted to show that it got its bishop ultimately 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."^[81]

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.^[82] 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,^[83] a Syriac work of the 6th century, based on the Doctrine of Addai.^[84] 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^[85] to Nisibis. Mari there destroys pagan temples, builds many churches and monasteries. Then he travels down the Tigris, preaches the Gospel by Ninive, around the capital (Seleucia-Ctesiphon), and comes as far as the province of Fars, where he "smelt the smell of the Apostle Thomas."^[86] Everywhere he builds churches and monasteries, and at last dies in peace at Dar-Ḳoni, 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 Mâr^[87] 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-Ḳoni, and to make it a place of general pilgrimage. But he would admit as possible that there was such a person.^[88] Dr. Wigram, on the strength of Mšīḥâzkâ,^[89] would admit Addai and a bishop Pḳidâ whom he ordained for Adiabene in 104. For Mari (whom Mšīḥâzkâ does not mention) he thinks there is less evidence.^[90]

Labourt regrets that instead of these legends we can advance "only timid conjectures" about the origin of Persian Christianity.^[91] There were flourishing Jewish colonies in Babylonia under the Parthian king. Whitsunday saw "Parthians and Medes and Elamites and dwellers in Mesopotamia" at Jerusalem,^[92] that is, Jews from those countries. No doubt, among them in their own homes, too, the name of Christ was preached very early. Another source of Persian Christianity was the land of Adiabene (Ḥadyab), 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,^[93] about 120 miles almost 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.^[94] 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 revolution (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.^[95] The Sassanid kings (e.g. Shapur I, 241–272) after their conquests carried out the old Eastern plan of deporting whole populations of subject provinces to other parts of their kingdom. These formed large Christian colonies in Persia. The prisoners were often Christians; 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. Demetrian went to Beth-Lapaṭ,^[96] east of the Tigris, and there founded the Metropolitan see of that place.^[97] There were, however, no metropolitan 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 Mazdæan mobeds, had slain Christians for their faith. The first martyr is counted to be Samson, Bishop of Arbela (Arbēl) in Adiabene, successor of Pḳidâ, whom Addai had ordained. He died in 123.^[98] There were others, as the result of local disturbances, repeatedly.^[99] The reason of their death is nearly always either that they are apostates from the national religion, or have converted a Mazdæan. This is typical of the attitude of Persians before the great persecution. Christians were tolerated as foreigners from the Roman Empire. The Mazdæans 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 Mšīḥâzkâ says that there were already more than twenty Christian bishops in Persia.^[100] 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 Mâr Shim‘un, now reigning at Ḳudshanis. 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.^[101] 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 quarrelsome Persian councils, at Seleucia about the year 315.^[102] 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^[103] and he fell senseless. This, naturally, seemed a judgement from Heaven; he was deposed, and his deacon, Simon Bar Ṣabbâ‘e,^[104] 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 went to the immediate chief, the Bishop of the Mother Church of Edessa;^[105] 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 Ṣabbâ‘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 dependence 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.^[106] He was succeeded by Simon (Šim‘un) Bar Ṣabbâ‘e (†341), 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,^[107] 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 flourishing institution.^[108] There were Solitaries (ḥdnânâye) and monks in community. The common name for a monk (but used also for a clerk in holy orders) is "Son of the Covenant."^[109] 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.^[110] And there were "Daughters of the Covenant," too. A later tradition ascribes Persian monasticism to a certain Eugene (Augīn), who brought it from the Egyptian desert, and founded the famous monastery of Mount Izlâ near Nisibis in the early 4th century.^[111]

The most important, almost the only, authority for these earliest times is Afrahaṭ,^[112] 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 Mâr Matai (St. Matthew), north of Mosul. Between the years 337 and 345 he wrote twenty-three Homilies or "Demonstrations," arranged acrostically, 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.

Afrahaṭ writes Trinitarian doxologies, naming the three Divine Persons in the usual way; but he does not know of the Council of Nicæa (325).^[113] 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.^[114] "The Lord with his own hands gave his body to be eaten and his blood to be drunk before he was crucified."^[115] Of Afrahaṭ's twenty-three Homilies nine are controversy against the Jews, evidently still a burning subject.^[116] He does not dare attack Mazdæism. 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,^[117] divination, magic, Chaldæan 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."^[118] 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.^[119]

Constantine wrote to Shapur II: "I rejoice to hear that all the chief cities of Persia are adorned by the presence of Christians."^[120] But that was the end of peace. Shapur II, the longlived 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 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 own 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 Cæsar 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 Cæsar, our enemy."^[121] The mobeds tell the king that "there is no secret which Simon^[122] does not write to Cæsar to reveal."^[123] 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."^[124] Shapur first made Christians pay double taxes to subsidize the war;^[125] then begins the long list of executions and torture which lasts throughout his reign. Christianity is punished by death; all Persians must show their loyalty to the King of Kings by accepting his religion.^[126] Simon Bar Ṣabbâe, 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, 339.^[127] Shahdost,^[128] his successor, was martyred in 342; the next bishop of the capital, Bar Ba‘shmīn, 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 Mazdæism or death, and were executed with all manner of horrible torture. The Roman martyrology on April 21 keeps the memory of St. Simon Bar Ṣabbâ‘e and his companions (Byzantine Calendar, April 17); and on August 4 we commemorate: "In Persia the holy martyrs Ia^[129] 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.^[130] The Nestorians and Chaldees keep on the sixth Friday of summer "the memory of Mâr Shim‘un Bar Ṣabbâ‘e, Katholikos and Patriarch, disciple of Mâr Papa Katholikos, and of the Fathers who were crowned with him."^[131] After Shapur's death Mâruthâ, Bishop of Maiferḳaṭ (see below), collected a great number of relics of these martyrs and brought them to his own city, which was then called Martyropolis. The Byzantine Menaia commemorates on February 6 "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.^[132] 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.^[133]

During Shapur II's 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.^[134] Two rather mysterious Bishops of Seleucia now appear, Tamuzâ and Ḳayumâ. Labourt doubts their existence:^[135] Wigram defends it.^[136] Then comes Isaac (Īsḥâḳ) I (399–410), contemporary with King Yazdagird^[137] 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 Mâruthâ of Maiferḳaṭ, already mentioned. Maiferḳaṭ was just over the frontier between the Tigris and Lake Van. Mâruthâ came to Persia as ambassador from Theodosius II (408-450); while he was there he used his influence as representing the "Western Fathers"^[138] to arrange the affairs of the distracted Christians in Persia. King Yazdagird was well disposed towards him^[139] and the Christians, and encouraged the work. In spite of her heroic suffering under persecution, 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. Mâruthâ 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. Mâruthâ played the chief part in it. It was to be for Persia what Nicæa had been for the Empire. About forty bishops were present. Mâruthâ 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 Nicæa shall be accepted. Twenty-one canons were drawn up on the model of those of Nicæa. 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 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.^[140] He was what we should call an Exarch, like those of Cæsarea and Ephesus.^[141] As a matter of fact, he took what seems to have been meant as a more splendid title; he was the Katholikos.^[142] 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.^[143] 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."^[144] 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 Mâr 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 against him. Ten years later another synod (420) under Isaac's second successor Yaballâhâ^[145] (415–420) adopted the canons of a number of Western synods.^[146] 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."^[147] Later, as we shall see (pp. 103–110), she became one of the chief missionary Churches of the world.

Towards the end of Yazdagird I's reign persecution broke out again. It began with the destruction of a Mazdæan temple by a Christian priest.^[148] Under Bahrām 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.^[149] A treaty of peace between Bahrām V and Theodosius II (408–450) in 422 guaranteed tolerance for Mazdæans in the Empire and for Christians in Persia. Nevertheless, there are martyrdoms for years after that.^[150]

In 421 (or 422) Dadyeshu‘^[151] 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^[152] was in Persia at the time, he was 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.^[153] 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."^[154] 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 complaint 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."^[155] She was so overwhelmed and drowned almost immediately.

Dadyeshu‘ reigned thirty-five years (421–456); meanwhile King Yazdagird II (438–457) continued a violent persecution, and the already great number of Persian martyrs was mightily increased.^[156] Already, under Dadyeshu‘, we see the first beginning of Nestorianism. His successor Babwai^[157] was Katholikos, or Patriarch, as they now also called him, from 456 to 485. Under him Bar Ṣaumâ 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 Constantinople before we tell of its adoption by the East Syrians.

 

Summary

This chapter is concerned with the preparation of the Nestorian 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. Afrahaṭ, the Persian sage, is the one early Father of this missionary Church. 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 metropolis, and at last in 424 the way is prepared for the heresy which will overwhelm the Persian Church, by a declaration of independence of any Western authority.

 

1. With slight differences. Three Syriac alphabets are used. The old form is called Esṭrangelâ (στρογγύλη). From this are derived the West Syrian letters (called Serṭo or Jacobite), and the East Syrian or Nestorian characters. Serṭo is most commonly used in books printed in the West, as being the alphabet of the best-known community.
2. Ra‘iyah, pl. ra‘āiā, a flock, from ra‘a, pascere.
3. Millah (pron. millet), pi. milal.
4. Called after his son Antiochos Soter (281–261), as Seleucia was after him.
5. Mithradates I is also Arsaces VI.
6. Urhâi is supposed to come from the name of a founder of the city. The Arabs make ar-ruhā of this, Greeks Ὀῤῥοηνή, then Ὀσῥοηνή. Edessa (Ἔδεσσα) 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 Urhâi is Ur of the Chaldees. One of the Armenian massacres in 1896 was here (see Sir E. Pears: Turkey and its People, London, Methuen, 1911, pp. 285–289).
7. Indeed, the dialect of Edessa became the classical Syriac language.
8. Either from the Syrian root bgar, to shut, hinder, belame, or Armenian Apghar = apagh ahr, a prince.
9. Arabic root ma‘an, to assert, consider, be useful, etc.
10. The stars Castor and Pollux. These are represented on their coins. Burkitt: Early Eastern Christianity, p. 17.
11. See Gibbon: Decline and Fall, chap. viii. (ed. Bury 1897, vol. i, pp. 207–208).
12. Greek Artaxerxes.
13. In later Persian Ormuzd and Ahriman. Ahura Mazda = Wise Lord, Anra Mainyu = Evil Spirit.
14. Now Zerdusht; Greek Zoroaster. He was undoubtedly a real person. See A. V. Williams Jackson: Zoroaster, the Prophet of Ancient Iran, New York, 1899.
15. Either = Kāfir (infidel) or Ḥabār (wizard); perhaps Persian Gabrā (= Aramaic Gebar, a man).
16. A good short modern account of Mazdæism is V. Henry: Le Parsisme, Paris, 1905 (Les religions des peuples civilizés). 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 purification 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.
17. Ḥadyab, the country between the Tigris and the Zab.
18. Ḥālid Ibn Walīd.
19. The Moslems conquered Egypt in 639.
20. Bagdad on the Tigris, just north of Ctesiphon, was chosen as his capital by ‘Abdullah al-Manṣūr, the second Abbasside Khalif (754–775).
21. A good parallel is that of the Franks in Western Europe, who learned everything from Rome, and finally became the successors and representatives of the Roman Empire.
22. Sulṭān, a king (Ar. salaṭ, to rule). This was at first an inferior title, granted to the Turkish chieftains by the Khalif at Bagdad (like Amīr).
23. At first. Later the independent Amirs of Egypt enter the lists.
24. Ḥān is a Persian word, again meaning Lord, Prince. It is one of the titles of the Sultan now.
25. Abū Aḥmad ‘Abdullāh, al-Musta‘aṣim billāh ("protected by God," 1242–1258). An alleged son of the house of Abbās 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.
26. Šī‘ah, "following "; a group of heresies based on the common idea that ‘Ali ibn Abī Ṭālib was the lawful successor of Mohammed. It has evolved further mystic and pantheist developments.
27. Sunni, a believer in the Sunnah (path = tradition), the name of the majority of Moslems, again divided into sects.
28. Léroubna d'Édesse: Histoire d'Abgar, in V. Langlois: Collection des historiens anc. et mod. de l'Arménie (Paris, 1880), i. 313–331.
29. Tixeront: Les origines de l'Église d'Édesse, pp. 22–29.
30. Burkitt: Early Eastern Christianity, p. 11.
31. G. Phillips: The Doctrine of Addai the Apostle (London, Trübner, 1876).
32. Ukkâmâ, "Black." There is already some doubt as to which King Abgar he is meant to be.
33. Not specified. Later writers say it was "black leprosy," hence his name (Tixeront, op. cit. p. 47); Bar Hebræus says he was called Black because he had white leprosy (ed. Abbeloos and Lamy, iii. 14).
34. Eleutheropolis was not so called, and had no governor, till the year 200.
35. 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 reproduce Biblical language, and has found a very pretty antithesis: "they who see me shall not believe," etc. But the promise about the independence 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 Edessenes about the time when the Roman danger was imminent.
36. A scribe was, of course, an artist.
37. The portrait of our Lord was long the Eastern counterpart of our Western Veronica's veil.
38. Hence, no doubt, the popularity of this document. It would be the one extant authentic work written by our Lord himself.
39. Eusebius: Hist. Eccl. vi. n, 12.
40. See p. 33.
41. Compiled about 540 from contemporary archives, published by Assemani: Bibliotheca orientalis, i. 388–417, and by L. Hallier in the Texte u. Untersuchungen, ix. 1 (Leipzig, 1892). See Duval: La littérature syriaque, pp. 187–188.
42. Assemani: op. cit. i. p. 390.
43. See the Catholic Encyclopædia, viii. 565–566.
44. H. Gelzer: Sextus Julius Africanus (Leipzig, 1898), p. 3.
45. Tixeront: Les origines de l'Église d'Édesse, p. 10.
46. Acts ii. 9.
47. Acts ii. 5.
48. Mingana: Sources syriaques (Leipzig, 1907). Hist. of Mshīḥâzkâ, pp. 77–78. See Wigram: The Assyrian Church, p. 27.
49. Tixeront: op. cit. p. 9.
50. Assemani: Bibl. Orient. i. p. 394, n. xiv.
51. London, J. Murray, 1904.
52. Chap. i.
53. We might compare Paluṭ and the old Edessene Church (on this supposition) with St. Augustine of Canterbury and the British Church.
54. Burkitt: op. cit. p. 28. James of Edessa (684–687) quotes Ephrem as having said this.
55. Burkitt: op. cit. pp. 34–35
56. Ib.
57. The Jacobite bishop James of Batnan in Mesopotamia (James of Srug. † 521; cf. Duval: Littérature syriaque, pp. 352–356) composed metrical homilies about these martyrs. Assemani: Bibl. orient. i. 329–333 (Nos. 191–192).
58. Bar-Daiṣân, "Son of the Daiṣân," which is the river at Edessa.
59. So Epiphanius: Adv. hær. 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).
60. Duval: Littérature syriaque, p. 207. See below, pp. 329–330.
61. Quoted by Burkitt: op. cit. pp. 159–160.
62. Hilgenfeld: Bardesanes der letzte Gnostiker (Leipzig, 1864).
63. Tatian: Or. adv. Græc. 42 (P.G. vi. 888).
64. P.G. vi. 803–888.
65. 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; ii. 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).
66. Mafaḳtâ pšīṭṭâ ("simple version").
67. Early Eastern Christianity, Lecture II.: "The Bible in Syriac," 39–78.
68. Afrem.
69. Carmina Nisibena, published by G. Bickell (Leipzig, 1866).
70. Chief edition by the Assemanis in six folio volumes (Rome, 1732–1746). For further literature see Bardenhewer: Patrologie (Freiburg, 1894), 364–366.
71. Lequien: Oriens. Christ. ii. 957.
72. See Orth. Eastern Church, pp. 7–8.
73. Orth. Eastern Church, pp. 8–9.
74. Except Egypt.
75. Orth. East. Church, pp. 16–17.
76. In the East the right of ordaining always involves jurisdiction over the ordained; ib. pp. 7, 45, etc.
77. Though in the country Syriac was spoken in the West too.
78. For the East Syrian liturgy see pp. 149–156.
79. Even the detail that East and West Syria evolved variant forms of their alphabet shows their separate development.
80. 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).
81. Adv. Iud. 7 (P.L. ii. 610).
82. Labourt: Le Christianisme dans l'empire perse, p. 10.
83. Abbeloos: Acta S. Maris Syriace sive Aramaice (Brussels, 1885, with a Latin version); re-edited by P. Bedjan: Acta martyrum et sanctorum, i. (Paris, 1890); German version by R. Raabe: Die Geschichte des Dominus Mari (Leipzig, 1893).
84. Cf. Duval: Littérature syriaque, 117–120.
85. Greek Μάρης.
86. Acta S. Maris, § 32 (transl. by R. Raabe, p. 59).
87. Mâr, by the way., is a title we shall often meet. Syriac, mâr (mârâ), fem. mârt; Arabic, mār, f. mārah, means Lord (Lady). It is used for bishops, patriarchs and saints (sometimes with the first pers. suffix: mâri, etc.).
88. Labourt: op. cit. 14–15. Duval: loc. cit.
89. Above, p. 32.
90. Hist. of the Assyrian Church, pp. 28–30.
91. Op. cit. 15.
92. Acts ii. 9.
93. Νίσιβις. Syr: Nṣībīn, Nšībīn, now a mean Arabic village with a few Armenians and Jacobites.
94. St. Ephrem was a Nisibite; see p. 35.
95. Mšīḥâzkâ, ed. by A. Mingana: Sources syriaques, vol. i. (Leipzig, Harrassowitz, 1907), p. 111.
96. Now Al-’Ahwāz.
97. Labourt: op. cit. 19–20.
98. Wigram: op. cit. 33.
99. Ib. 33–37.
100. Op. cit. 106.
101. See Orth. Eastern Church, p. 7.
102. Wigram: op. cit. p. 50.
103. He was an old man; ordained apparently in 280 (Wigram: op. cit. 45).
104. "Son of the Dyers."
105. 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.
106. Wigram: op. cit. p. 55.
107. There were many conversions of Mazdæans, in spite of the danger to both converter and convert.
108. So Afrahaṭ: Demonstr. vi.: Patrol. Syr. i. (ed. by Dom Parisot, Paris, 1894), p. lxv.
109. Bar ḳyâmâ: not easy to translate. Ḳyâmâ is a military station, a law, treaty, dogma, etc. (ḳam, to stand).
110. Labourt: op. cit. 29–30.
111. See the Life of Eugene (9th cent.), ed. by P. Bedjan (Acta martyrum et sanctorum, Leipzig, 1890–1895; iii. 376–480). Labourt does not think much of this story. Thomas of Margâ knows nothing of it (see p. 110).
112. Ἀφραάτης.
113. There was one Persian bishop at Nicæa; 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 Perrhæ (Le Christ. dans l'emp. perse, p. 32, n. 2).
114. Dem. xii. (ed. Parisot, i. 505–540).
115. Dem. xii. 6 (ed. Parisot, col. 518).
116. 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.
117. That is, pagan astrological calculations and feasts.
118. Ed. Parisot, i. 44–45.
119. De philosophia peripatetica ap. Syros (Paris, 1852), p. 3. For Afrahaṭ, see Labourt: op. cit. 28–42; Burkitt: op. cit. 79–95; Duval: Littérature 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, i. ii. (Paris, 1894–1907; Syr. and Latin); by G. Bert: Aphraates des persischen Weisen Homilien (Leipzig, 1888: Texte u. Unters. iii. 3–4, German only).
120. Vita Const. iv. 13 (P.G. xx. 1161).
121. Labourt: op. cit. 46.
122. Simon Bar Ṣabbâ‘e, Papa's successor (p. 42).
123. Labourt: ib. 46.
124. Ib. 143.
125. This is ordered by his first proclamation: Labourt, 46.
126. Jews were cruelly persecuted too.
127. Lequien: Or. Christ. ii. 1107. Labourt gives the story of his trial and death, 63–68; also Wigram: op. cit. 63–64.
128. Persian for "friend of the King."
129. Eudocia (Nilles: Kalendarium manuale, Innsbruck, 1896; i. p. 234).
130. Ib. 233.
131. Ib. ii. 687.
132. Nilles: op. cit. ii. 334–335, and note 2.
133. 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.
134. Peace with Rome and for the Persian Christians. These two generally go together.
135. Op. cit. 85–86, note 4.
136. Op. cit. 101–102.
137. That is, I believe, the Persian form. In Syriac he is Yazdgerd, in Arabic Yazdashir.
138. Being a suffragan of Edessa.
139. Socrates (Hist. Eccl. vii. 8; P.G. lxvii. 752) and others say that Mâruthâ 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).
140. 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.
141. Orth. Eastern Church, pp. 23–25.
142. Katulīḳâ, Katulīḳus, and various spellings. Ar. gāthulīk. In English "Katholikos" seems the reasonable form, or at any rate "Catholicus." "Catholicos," not seldom seen, is a bad mixture of Greek and Latin.
143. Orth. Eastern Church, chap. i.
144. Dr. Wigram thinks that Katholikos simply means Patriarch from the beginning; that the Katholikos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon was the equal of the Katholikos of Antioch (Hist. of the Assyrian Church, pp. 91–92). Eventually 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.
145. "God gave" (= Theodore).
146. E.g. of Antioch in encæniis (341), etc. Cf. Wigram: Hist. of the Assyrian Church, pp. 110–113.
147. Ib. 103, 105.
148. Labourt: Le Christianisme dans l'empire perse, p. 105.
149. For this persecution see Labourt: op. cit. 104–118; Wigram: op. cit. 113–120.
150. Labourt, p. 118.
151. "Friend of Jesus."
152. 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. Bahrām 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.
153. 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.
154. Chabot: Synodicon Orientale, 51, 296.
155. Archbishop Heath in the House of Lords in 1559 (Phillips: The Extinction of the Ancient Hierarchy, London, 1905, p. 74).
156. For Yazdagird II's persecution see Labourt: op. cit. pp. 126–130; Wigram: op. cit. pp. 138–141.
157. Babwai or Babai, Greek Βαβαῖος, Babæus.