The Lesser Eastern Churches/Chapter 5
CHAPTER V
THE PRESENT NESTORIAN CHURCH
We come at last to what is left of this ancient Church. The Nestorians now left are but a small sect of little importance in the great Christian family; yet behind them one sees their glorious past, the martyrs under Shapur II, the missionaries who brought the Gospel to China. If only for the sake of these one would speak of their descendants with all respect. In seeing them as they now are, we think first of the awful calamity of their schism. True, they have kept the Christian faith nobly during all those dark centuries of degradation. The faith of Christ—and, alas! of Nestorius—is still alive where once the school of Nisibis argued against Cyril and Ephesus. Yet—if only they had kept it without the isolation of schism! How honoured a province of the great Church of Christ might they now be, how strong in their union with the mighty Church of the West! One would like to go back to the days of Bar Ṣaumâ and Aḳaḳ, and to say to them: "Never mind about Ḳnumâ and Kyânâ: who can understand these things? Worship Christ as does the rest of Christendom, and wait till you see him to understand his nature. And, if the great Church has cast out Nestorius, you must let him go too. At any rate, at any price do not make a schism. Trust Christ that he will not let his Church become really impossible, and stay in her whatever happens." Too late now! we must comfort ourselves with the Chaldæan Uniates.
This chapter will describe the hierarchy, faith, rites and number of Nestorians as they are now. But first we may clear the ground by describing what is practically their rediscovery in the 19th century, and the various missions which work among them.
1. The Rediscovery of the Nestorians
The word rediscovery is not inappropriate. It is true that the little sect was never quite forgotten. People knew that there were still Nestorians in Turkey and Persia. The authorities of the Catholic Church especially were always conscious of them. Since the Crusades we have had missionaries working for their reunion. Since the 16th century there has been an organized Uniate Chaldsean Church. There have been constant negotiations between East Syrian Patriarchs and Rome; at intervals practically the whole body has come back to union. The Assemani and Renaudot knew much about them. Yet the general popular interest in these people, especially in England and America, dates from what was practically a rediscovery in the 19th century.
They owe this in the first place to the presence of Assyrian ruins in their land. Claude James Rich, Resident of the British East India Company in Bagdad, visited the ruins of Nineveh in 1820. His report excited great interest in England and America.[1] From that time begins the systematic exploration of Assyrian remains, in which A. H. Layard made for himself the greatest name.[2] These explorers brought back incidentally reports of the Christians they had found in those parts. Rich mentions them.[3] Layard employed Nestorian workmen to excavate for him, and gives in his book a considerable account of these people.[4] Two circumstances combined to spread this interest. One was the surprising discovery that they still talked Syriac; that this, therefore, was not a dead language, as people had supposed. It was almost as astonishing as would be the discovery of a nation which talks Hebrew. This fact seemed to give them the dignity of immemorial age. Were not these at last the real primitive Christians, unspoiled by later corruptions, still speaking the very language used by our Lord and his apostles? All kinds of conjectures were wildly made, including the inevitable one that the lost Ten Tribes had at last been found.[5] Another circumstance fanned the enthusiasm among Protestants. These unspoiled primitive Christians, were they Papists? By no means. They had no pictures in their churches! That alone would be enough to show the purity of their faith. But there was more and better. They said something about the Blessed Virgin which Roman Catholics did not say; they had heard of the Pope of Rome and could not abide him; they had Bibles, and were quite willing to accept more. They seem in those days to have been prepared to agree with enthusiasm to anything their Protestant visitors said. Monks? Were there monks in the Church of England? No. Then they had not any either. The Holy Eucharist? What did their honoured visitors believe about it themselves? Nothing very definite, but certainly not what the Pope says. Exactly the state of the Nestorian mind on the subject. They, too, are not very clear about it; but they are certain the Pope is wrong. So there came that wonderful myth of Mâr Shim‘un and his people as the "Protestants of the East." Poor little harried sect! These well-dressed European travellers had money, power, influence. Pashas and Kaimakams trembled before them. And they were so friendly to the poor rayahs. What wonder that the rayahs were anxious to agree?
A further reason for interest in the Nestorians was their need of protection by some civilized State. They have continually been persecuted by their neighbours, notably by the fanatical Kurds who share their mountains. During the early 19th century there were endless raids of Kurds on Nestorian villages, accompanied by the massacre, rape, burning of houses and churches, which form the inner history of the Turkish Empire at all times. There had been very bad cases of this about 1830; so that the conscience of Europe was aroused, as it was at the time of the Bulgarian, Maronite and Armenian atrocities. Hitherto the wilds of Kurdistan had been practically independent of the Government and a free fighting-ground for their tribes.[6] In 1834 the Government made a spasmodic effort to assert itself here, and for a time succeeded. That is to say, it sent an army and hanged everyone they met, till it got tired of it. This is an excellent proceeding and does much good as far as it goes. But they never hang quite everyone. So when the army has gone back, crowned with victory, the old state of things begins again just as before. The victorious arms of Rashīd Pasha in 1834 did no good to the harmless Nestorians; but the fuss about pacifying Kurdistan again called the attention of foreign consuls to their piteous state. So begins an invasion of Kurdistan by Protestant missionaries of various sects, who build schools and hospitals, set up printing-presses and Bible-classes. Let it be said at once that these Protestants have, all things considered, done immense good to the poor little forsaken sect. Apart from religious questions, they have at any rate taught and educated, they have nursed the sick and distributed books; in short, they have civilized considerably. One result of their work is that numbers of Nestorians can read and write. They learn Persian and Turkish, some English, so that not a few sail away to make their fortune in America.
Mr. Joseph Wolff from England came about 1820 and secured a copy of the Syriac New Testament. He brought this back; it was printed by the British Bible Association in 1827 and distributed in great numbers around Urmi. But among organized missions the American Presbyterians were first in the field.[7] In 1830 their Board of Missions sent two men, Messrs Smith and Davies, who brought back a favourable report. Dr. Julius Perkins opened a mission in 1834; in 1835 Dr. Asahel Grant joined him. This American mission has large buildings at Urmi; men and women work here among the natives. They have doctors and a printing-press. Meanwhile no less interest was aroused in England. Mr. Ainsworth travelled about among the Nestorians and published an account of them in 1842;[8] he had received instructions to inquire into their condition from the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. In 1842 Mr. George Percy Badger, Chaplain of the East India Company, was sent out by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Howley) and the Bishop of London (Dr. Blomfield). He stayed there a year, visited all the sects of Mesopotamia, and made such good use of his time as is shown in the delightful book he published on his return.[9] He carried friendly and complimentary letters to Mâr Shim‘un from the archbishop and bishop. While he was there a Kurdish insurrection and massacre took place; the Patriarch found refuge in his house. He also made clear to the Nestorians that the Church of England only wanted to help them, not to convert them. From this time begins the very friendly feeling of Nestorians towards Anglicans. Badger was eager that an Anglican mission should be established at once; but nothing was done for some years. In 1868 a demand for missionaries to help them came to the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Tait) from Mâr Shim‘un, his clergy and notables.[10] In answer to this Mr. E. L. Cutts was sent out in 1876 to report,[11] and Mr. Rudolph Wahl, an Anglican clergyman, departed to open a mission in 1881. He was not liked by the Nestorians, and was recalled in 1885. In 1886 Mr. W. H. Browne and Canon Maclean went under the guidance of Mr. Athelstan Riley, who published a report of all they saw and did till he left them.[12] This is the beginning of the present mission of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the "Assyrian Christians." They had their headquarters till lately at Urmi; now they have moved to Van.[13] They have schools, and a press which issues editions of Nestorian service-books. Other bodies have smaller missions. The Danish Lutherans commissioned a converted Nestorian, Nestorius George Malech, to work as a missionary for them in 1893.[14] There is a small Baptist mission.[15]
The Russians, too, have been active here. At one time it seemed as if the whole Nestorian body would turn Orthodox. In 1827 a number of Nestorian families fled to Russian territory at Erivan and joined the Orthodox Church.[16] Later, at repeated intervals, Nestorians have asked Russia for help and protection, and have declared themselves willing to be Orthodox in return. In 1898 a Nestorian bishop, with four other clergymen, went to St. Petersburg, said they represented their nation, and abjured their heresies. They came back with Russian missionaries and made a propaganda of the Orthodox faith. The Russians built a mission-house, set up a press, and for a time made many converts.[17] But their fair promises were not fulfilled. The Tsar sent no army to make them free and powerful; so the converts slipped back to the obedience of Mâr Shim‘un. The Russian mission among them only vegetates; though occasionally one hears of Russian clergy labouring among the Nestorians still. When to all these missions we add the long-established and zealous Catholic clergy, who have built up the Uniate Chaldæan Church, we realize that the Nestorians, once themselves so great missioners, now know what it is to be the objects of copious missionizing.
The attitude of these foreign missions towards the Nestorian sect is very curious. Of course, that of the Catholics and Orthodox is quite simple. They frankly make converts from the heretical body; with, however, this difference, that the Catholics make Uniates. A Nestorian who joins them does not give up his rite, nor any legitimate principle or custom of his nation. He abjures his heresy, acknowledges the Council of Ephesus, and so returns to the state of the old Persian Church before it fell into heresy and schism. But the Orthodox have no Uniates. In joining them a Nestorian must leave his nation, accept the Byzantine rite, and become practically a Russian. This is merely the invariable difference between the uniformity always demanded by the Orthodox and the more generous toleration of the Catholic Church.
The first Protestant missionaries did not at once set up special sects. They were on very friendly terms with the Nestorian hierarchy, and rejoiced rather that they had discovered these "Protestants of the East." So we hear of their going to church with Nestorian bishops.[18] And the Nestorians, as we said (p. 116), at first encouraged them and welcomed them, no doubt thinking them the "Nestorians of the West." At any rate, here were men who abjured the Theotókos and the Pope, who cared nothing for Ephesus (or, for the matter of that, for any other council). These first Protestants did not work directly against the Nestorian hierarchy. Yet indirectly it came eventually to the same thing. They worked on the basis of the usual Protestant contempt for any rites or Church organization. They simply ignored all that, saying nothing directly against it, but teaching pure Gospel, faith alone, and so on, together with a good deal of general education and Western ideas. They propagated, besides Bibles,[19] such books as the Pilgrim's Progress[20] and the Saints' Everlasting Rest.[21] No doubt they foresaw that their pupils in time would discover for themselves the vanity of such things as bishops, rites and sacraments, would quietly drop away from their ancient liturgy and attend only the missionaries' prayer-meetings. At any rate, that is what happened. Now the Presbyterians have evolved an East Syrian Presbyterian sect. They have their own chapels and services, and do, as a matter of fact, make a fairly large number of converts from the Nestorian Church.[22]
But there appear to be still some ambiguous people who are, it seems, in communion with Mâr Shim‘un, although they make a purely Protestant propaganda. The most puzzling of these is Mr. Nestorius George Malech, who has translated an odd book about his nation by his father.[23] This Mr. Malech, if we may trust his own account, succeeds in running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. He was educated at the Presbyterian School at Urmi, and shows us the diploma he got there.[24] He is an archdeacon of the Nestorian Church, ordained by the Metropolitan, Mâr Ḥnânyeshu‘ (p. 132). In the same work we may contemplate a phototype of his ordination diploma.[25] He is secretary of a society for "looking after the remnant of their old Church," to whom Mâr Ḥnânyeshu‘ sent a bishop in 1900.[26] The society works with the bishop and pays his salary. In 1900 Mr. Malech had charge of a Nestorian Church of St. Mary at Urmi.[27] The society has formed itself into a "Patriarchal Committee" which sends money to the Patriarch. He in return (July 15, 1908) sends them his blessing and seems to be quite pleased with them. Mr. Malech is one of the seven who form the committee.[28] At the same time he is an active and zealous missionary of the Norwegian Lutheran Church! They have a little mission at Urmi; he is their agent and emissary there. His book (which is full of strange things) shows us his diploma as Lutheran missionary too, with the Norwegian arms; a tariff stamp "for the amount of 100 Kroner, but not exceeding 150"; his undertaking "to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ in accordance with the doctrines of the evangelical Lutheran Church," and "to remain true to the evangelical Lutheran confession." For this he receives 70 kroner a month. This document is dated June 17, 1893, at Kristiania.[29] Mr. Malech does not appear to have broken with the Lutherans in any way. The last I heard of him is that he has been collecting money from Lutherans in Norway and America, and was in England for the same purpose. He has also a warm recommendation from the Patriarchal Committee.[30] In his book you may see many strange things, including portraits of his mother-in-law and son,[31] of his wife and of himself in six varied and astonishing costumes,[32] but nothing that throws any light on the burning question what exactly he is. After mature examination of his collection of photographs, documents and infantile excursuses into Church history, I am reluctantly compelled to give up the Rev. Nestorius George Malech. But the possibility of so ambiguous a person as he throws a lurid light on the state of the present Nestorians.
The attitude of the Anglican mission is no less ambiguous, but in a different way. Its beginnings were of the usual Protestant type. It proposed to educate and purify the Nestorians, without directly disturbing their organization. Mr. Badger was old-fashioned enough not to worry much about the Council of Ephesus. He loathes Popery, of course, and never fails to lay his finger on the wickedness of Uniates. Otherwise he seems to think the Nestorians very much like the Church of England, Catholic but not Roman, outwardly divided but one in spirit. His second volume examines the faith of the Nestorians in a way that must be gall and wormwood to the present missionaries. For he takes as his standard of universal orthodoxy the Thirty-nine Articles (of all things!), and tests the Nestorians, not unfavourably on the whole, by their agreement with these. For this he is scolded hard throughout the notes by Dr. Neale,[33] who, although for some reason he does not seem to mind Monophysites,[34] is very angry with the Nestorians. He is, naturally, hardly less angry with the Articles. So, between the two, poor Mr. Badger suffers in the notes.[35] But since Mr. Riley went out to rejuvenate the Anglican mission it has become very High Church indeed. The missionaries now have vestments, daily celebrations, and so on. This makes their attitude towards the Nestorians all the more difficult to understand. They are not in communion with them;[36] but short of that they go every possible length. They make no converts. Their little paper[37] is never tired of insisting on this. They are very angry with the Roman missionaries who do make converts; they talk of the Uniates as schismatics from their lawful Patriarch. The Anglicans print books for use in Nestorian churches, they educate future Nestorian clergy, and teach their pupils the duty of obeying Mâr Shim‘un. They are always at hand to counsel, encourage and support the Patriarch. Naturally this attitude is pleasant to the Nestorians; the Anglicans are on the best possible terms with Mâr Shim‘un and his clergy. Only—how is it possible thus to co-operate with a heretical sect? If they thought the Nestorians one more branch of the Catholic Church, a branch long neglected, so now backward and in need of reform, their attitude would be most natural and right. But how can they think this? The Nestorians formally reject the fourth general council and honour Nestorius among the saints. If that does not make a body heretical, what does? Surely even a moderate Anglican accepts at least the first four general councils. How can these extreme High Churchmen so cavalierly ignore the fourth? Would they thus co-operate with Calvinists or Methodists? And is it not, from their own point of view, the duty of each Nestorian to leave his heretical sect and join one of the true branches of the Church, even by becoming a Uniate?
The Anglican answer to this is curious and typical. They say first that they have the blessing and approval of the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch,[38] to whose obedience these Nestorians should return; secondly, that they labour for that return. They do not print any heretical matter in the books they supply,[39] nor do they teach heresy in their schools. Lastly, they are much inclined to find the "Assyrian Church"[40] not guilty of Nestorianism. Dr. W. A. Wigram, of this mission, distinguishes himself in this direction, and has written a book to defend the "Assyrians" from heresy.[41] To this the retort is obvious. The attitude of the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, if in his heart he really approves of the Anglican mission,[42] is only one more case of the usual Orthodox inconsistency. His religion does not allow him to look upon Mâr Shim‘un as anything but the heretical leader of a heretical sect; his co-religionists of Russia are at this very moment attacking the problem in the only possible way (according to Orthodox principles), by making converts from Nestorian to Orthodoxy. And in any case the Patriarch of Antioch can no more make co-operation with a heretical sect lawful than can anyone else. That the Anglicans do not print heretical matter for the Nestorians is, so far, good; it would be still worse if they did. But this is not enough to justify all they do. Once you admit that the Nestorian Church (or "Assyrian" Church) is a heretical sect (and how can anyone who acknowledges the Council of Ephesus do otherwise?), it is wrong to co-operate with it in sacris at all. It has no rights as a religious body; its Patriarch and bishops have no lawful jurisdiction, no claim to anyone's loyalty or obedience. Each member should come out of his sect into the Catholic Church[43] at once. To encourage them to stay where they are, in the hope that some day the whole body may be converted, is to do evil that good may come of it—the very thing of which they so often and so falsely accuse us. Once more, what would these High Churchmen say to other Anglicans who co-operated thus with Congregationalists or Baptists.[44] Perhaps the root of the ambiguous position of the Anglican missionaries is their (typically Anglican) neglect of any idea of jurisdiction. Apart from the question of Mâr Shim‘un's faith, they should consider a plain question: Has he, or has he not, any lawful jurisdiction from God? As head of a schismatical sect, outside the Church of Christ (on their own theory), of course he has not. Then he has no lawful authority, no one is bound in conscience to obey him, and it is wrong in any way to assist his usurped pretensions. The Orthodox, of course, would say this plainly. As for the heresy of the "Assyrians," we have already discussed that (pp. 81–84). A Church which officially repudiates the decrees of Ephesus, which glories in its fidelity to the theology of Nestorius and counts him among its saints, is heretical, although, no doubt, many simple souls in it do not understand much about that old controversy. Strangest of all, perhaps, is the hostility of these Anglican missionaries towards the Uniate Chaldees.[45] That they do not like our making converts from Anglicanism or Orthodoxy is natural enough. But they should rejoice in the Chaldees as much as in Roman Catholic converts from Lutheranism or Calvinism. The Chaldee abjures Nestorius, accepts Ephesus, and (on Anglican principles) leaves a heretical sect to enter the Catholic Church, in its largest branch. Is not this a good thing for him? When we consider further that the Chaldees have the original Patriarchal line, that Mâr Shim‘un represents merely an (originally Romanist) schismatical line (p. 102), the Anglican talk about Chaldees as schismatics becomes quite unintelligible. Except, of course, on the basis (so often assumed by Protestants of all kinds) that you had better be anything, even a Nestorian heretic, than be in union with the Pope of Rome.[46]
But one would not leave the Anglican mission without noticing its other side. It would be ungenerous to ignore that, in spite of the confusion of their position, they are doing enormous good. These missionaries devote their lives heroically to the difficult task of educating fellow-Christians in a distant, ungrateful land. From our point of view, we should say that, short of becoming Chaldees, the Nestorians can do no better than profit by the instruction, accept the guidance, follow the edifying example of their generous Anglican guests. We, too, may wish the Anglican mission God-speed in its noble work, with the additional wish that their instructions may open Nestorian eyes even more than they themselves intend; so that their pupils may at last seek reunion, not with the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, but with a greater Patriarch, whose authority reaches further and is more firmly based. For it was not on the bishops of Cerularius's schism that Christ built his Church.
2. The Nestorian Hierarchy
The consideration of modern missions to this ancient Church has led us somewhat from our immediate subject. We have now to describe the Nestorians as they are at present. The first point seems to be obviously their numbers and organization under their hierarchy.
The Nestorians to-day fall into two main classes: those who live in Persia, and those in the Turkish Empire. In Persia there are groups and villages of Nestorians scattered about the Province of Aserbaijan,[47] mostly in the plains bordering Lake Urmi; there are others in the mountains towards the Turkish frontier. In Turkey they are found mostly in the Vilayet of Van. These, again, fall into two classes. Those in the mountains are called ‘ashīrah (tribe).[48] They consist of families, said to be courageous
FIG. 2.—ḲUDSHANIS.
(From a photograph by the Rev. F. N. Heazell.)
and warlike, in the mountain fastnesses, practically independent of the Turkish Government—for the usual reason, because the Government cannot get at them. They flourish and fight Kurds in the wild country where the great Zab takes its rise between the lakes Van and Urmi (Tiari and Tḥuma), pay taxes very irregularly, and really obey only Mâr Shim‘un. The other group is that of the ordinary ra‘iyyah in the open country, more accessible to the Government, and so very much more miserable in every way. A triangle between Lake Van, Lake Urmi and almost down to Mosul encloses the home of the present Nestorians. Its centre is the village Ḳudshanis, where dwells the Patriarch. South of this triangle we come to the plains around Mosul and Bagdad, now inhabited chiefly by the Uniate Chaldees. The distinction of religion is not, of course, entirely geographical. There are a few Nestorians at Mosul, in Persian towns, Armenia, perhaps at Urfah and Diyarbakr; but these are, so to say, strangers in a foreign land, just as there are some in America.
The total number of the Nestorians is estimated variously. Statistics in both Turkey and Persia are generally mere guesses. In any case, it is now only a small remnant. The largest number I find is given by Silbernagl, 150,000,[49] the smallest 70,000.[50] Cuinet, who is generally sound, gives 100,000.[51] What do these people call themselves? It is generally difficult to find the technical name used by the smaller Eastern Churches for themselves, because so often they have none, calling themselves simply "Christians," or some such indefinite title. Most Nestorians if asked what they are would say simply Mshīḥâye (Christian), or Suryâne (Syrian), both of which names they also give to the Jacobites. Often they distinguish themselves from us and the Orthodox as "Christians of the East." But they have not the smallest objection to the name "Nestorian." Mâr ‘Ebedyeshu‘, Metropolitan of Nisibis, in 1298 drew up a profession of faith,[52] which he calls "The Orthodox Creed of the Nestorians."[53] He dates it at the end as written in September "in the year of Alexander, 1609, in the blessed city of Ḥlāt, in the church of the blessed Nestorians."[54] He makes a list of Church books (mentioning the "false" Synod of Ephesus),[55] written (he says) by "Nestorian divines."[56] Nor has their custom changed since his time. Mr. Badger heard these people call themselves Suryâne, Nesṭuryane, Ḳrisṭyane, Mshīḥâye; but never Ḥaldaye (Chaldee), which is the recognized name for the Uniates. Lately a student at the Anglican mission-school shocked his teachers by writing in an essay on his people the statement: "The Syrians have taken their religion from Mâr Nestoris."[57] So it seems that if one were to ask one of these people whether he be a Nestorian, he would answer quite simply that he is. No doubt the more educated would say that their religion is that of Christ and his Apostles, as taught and defended by the blessed Nestorius—which is, of course, what every heretic says about the founder of his sect.[58]
Over these people reigns the Katholikos and Patriarch, Mâr Shim‘un. He is their ecclesiastical chief and practically their civil chief too; that is to say, he is the only person they obey willingly and loyally in all things. The Turkish governors (Wāli and Kā’immaḳām), of course, claim political authority over the Nestorians, as over all rayahs, and use it when they can; but generally they have to count with Mâr Shim‘un. The Nestorian goes to his Patriarch to have his disputes settled. The Patriarch rules thus by virtue of public opinion; his excommunication entails a general boycott and is much dreaded.[59] Mâr Shim‘un is, then, the recognized ra’is (civil head) of his "nation";[60] the Turkish Government pays him an annual subsidy;[61] it is not true that he does not receive a berat from the Turkish Government,[62] though in troubled times no doubt it arrived irregularly. Under him are the chiefs of tribes,[63] who have civil authority each over his own group.
Mâr Shim‘un, then, claims to represent the old line of Persian Katholikoi of Seleucia-Ctesiphon from Mari and Papa Bar Aggai (p. 102). His claim is not true. Really he represents the line of Patriarchs founded by Sulâḳâ, originally Uniate. The old line is that of the present Uniate Patriarch. Logically, then, it should be said that the old Nestorian Persian Church (represented by her hierarchy) is now Uniate, that Mâr Shim‘un is head of a schism from that Church which has gone back to Nestorianism. This is what anyone would admit, were no controversial issue at stake. But since the roles of the lines of Sulâḳâ and of Bar Mâmâ have now become so curiously reversed, non-Catholics ignore their origin, treat Mâr Shim‘un as head of the old Persian (or "Assyrian") Church, and the real old Church as schismatic, because it is not in communion with him.
The Nestorian Patriarchate has again fallen into the great abuse of this sect; it is hereditary. There is a "Patriarchal family," as there are families of bishops—the "holders of the throne."[64] As bishops must be celibate, this means that they keep several nephews[65] in their house, from whom their successor will be chosen. The bishop may never eat flesh-meat, nor have eaten meat; nor may his mother have done so during her time of pregnancy. Clearly, then, the choice of a bishop may only fall on one of these Nazarites, whose lives (and for a time those of their mothers) have been arranged to prepare for election.[66] The Nazarites who are not elected then often begin eating flesh-meat, marry, and so are disqualified for the episcopate. When the Patriarch dies, the notables elect one of the Patriarchal family, often a very young man, or even a child, to succeed him.[67] He is then consecrated and enthroned by the Metropolitan (p. 132). Now that he lives at Ḳudshanis, this takes place in the Patriarchal Church of Mâr Shalīṭâ.[68] As in the case of many Eastern Churches, the form of making a Patriarch is, to all intents and purposes, an ordination, though the candidate is first ordained bishop. In their descriptions of the hierarchy they count the Patriarch distinct from a bishop, apparently in the same sense as a bishop is distinct from a priest (p. 134). Now the Patriarch-Katholikos always takes the name Simon and becomes Mâr Shim‘un. He is the supreme authority over all Nestorians. In theory he can only be judged by his "brother Patriarchs"; but as he now has none who recognize him,[69] this means that no one can judge him. But he must rule the Church according to the canons (see p. 135). If he does not do so, presumably this would be considered a just reason for withstanding his orders, or perhaps even for deposing him.[70] Mâr Shim‘un has a large diocese of his own.[71] He has the right to ordain, translate, and depose all other Nestorian bishops. If the Metropolitan (p. 132) ordains a bishop, a further ceremony, very like a second ordination, must be performed by the Patriarch. The Patriarch may further ordain a priest for any diocese; he alone consecrates the holy chrism (every seven years), and blesses the antimensia.[72] He can make canon and liturgical laws, he censures books, and is named in all public prayers. His income consists of a tax of about threepence, levied every three years from all men who obey him, the first-fruits (in kind) of his own diocese and a tithe of the first-fruits of other bishops, fines often imposed instead of excommunication, free gifts (sometimes of a considerable amount) made by the notables,[73] and the Turkish subsidy.[74] His title is: "The reverend and honoured father of fathers and great shepherd, Mâr Shim‘un, Patriarch and Katholikos of the East."[75] He uses his own Christian name before "Shim‘un" at the head of his letters. His seal bears in the middle the inscription: "The lowly Simon (Shim‘un), Patriarch of the East," and around: "Mâr Shim‘un, who sits on the throne of the Apostle Addai."[76] The last Patriarch, Ruwil (for Rubil = Ruben), died on March 29, 1903. A fortnight before (March 15) he had appointed his nephew Benjamin (Benyamīn) to succeed him, and had ordained him bishop. On April 12, the metropolitan, Mâr Ḥnânyeshu‘ ordained Benjamin Patriarch. There had been a good deal of dispute and intrigue about the succession. A cousin, Mâr Abraham, had been appointed successor formerly, and he had many adherents, chiefly among the Nestorians of the plains. It was the ‘Ashīrah people who made the old Patriarch change and appoint Benjamin.[77] Mâr Benyamīn Shim‘un is now only twenty-seven years old. He became Patriarch at the age of seventeen.
There is now only one Metropolitan (called Maṭrān), who ranks as second after the Patriarch. He is always Mâr Ḥnânyeshu‘.[78] He has a diocese partly in Turkey and partly in Persia.[79] He has the right of ordaining the Patriarch, and assists him in his government. The present Metropolitan (Isaac by baptism), a very old man, is greatly respected and has much influence. He resides at Neri, on the Turkish side of the frontier. Besides the Patriarch and the Metropolitan, the Nestorians have seven bishops in Turkey and three in Persia, of whom several have only nominal dioceses. Moreover, the limits of the dioceses often change and appear to be very uncertain.[80] The dioceses in the plain of Urmi follow the course of the rivers, so that to belong to a certain river means to belong to the corresponding diocese. The succession of bishops is arranged usually like that of the Patriarch. There are "holders of the throne" (nephews or cousins of the bishop) brought up specially, abstaining always from flesh-meat, one of whom is chosen by the leading clergy and the notables of the diocese to succeed, and is then presented to Mâr Shim‘un for ordination. But this arrangement, involving a kind of heredity in certain episcopal families, is not according to the Nestorian canon law. Old custom demanded that bishops should be monks, and laws forbade a bishop to nominate his successor. But there are now practically no monks. The hereditary principle grew up as an abuse about three or four centuries ago.[81] It still sometimes happens that, when there is no "holder of the throne" who can be ordained, a priest, no relation of the last bishop, is chosen. One of the many bad 
FIG. 3.—THE NESTORIAN KATHOLIKOS, MÂR BENYAMIN SHIM'UN.
(From a photograph by the Rev. F. N. Heazell.)
The parish priest (kahnâ, ḳashīshâ, ḳashâ) is chosen by the community, and must be accepted and ordained by the bishop. Under the bishop the Archpriest (rab kumre) counts as first in the diocese. In the bishop's absence he replaces him at certain functions. Chorepiscopi (called sâ‘aure, "visitors") are not ordained bishop. They are priests having jurisdiction over a group of country parishes, whose clergy they assemble twice a year for examination and direction. The Archpriest is merely the Chorepiscopus of the city. The Archdeacon (arkīdyaḳunâ) looks after the bishop's finances, and acts as a kind of Vicar-General for the diocese. Under the priest come the deacon (shamâshâ, dyaḳnâ), the subdeacon (hufâdyaḳnâ), and the reader (ḳâruyâ, âmurâ). The shahârâ ("awakener") is the clerk (often a reader or an old priest) who presides at the night-office, and sometimes at funerals.
The Nestorians says that their hierarchy corresponds to the nine choirs of angels, thus: 1, Patriarch (= Cherub); 2, Metropolitan (= Seraph); 3, Bishop (= Throne); 4, Archpriest (= Dominion); 5, Chorepiscopus (= Virtue); 6, Priest (= Power); 7, Deacon (= Principality); 8, Subdeacon (= Archangel); 9, Reader (= Angel).[84] A curious point about these orders of the hierarchy is that each is attained by a special ordination form, with laying-on of hands. A priest who becomes a chorepiscopus, a deacon who becomes an archdeacon, is ordained, just as a priest who becomes a bishop. We should, of course, say that the making of a deacon, a priest, a bishop is the Sacrament of Holy Orders; that the other ceremonies are only sacramentals, blessings at the appointment, like our minor orders. But this distinction does not appear to be very clear to Nestorians. A ceremony suspiciously like reordination, for instance, is appointed for a bishop who becomes Patriarch.
At one time monasticism flourished among the Nestorians (p. 110); ruins of their monasteries may be seen all over the plain of Mosul. None are now inhabited. The monastic life fell to pieces since the 14th century, especially because of the characteristic Nestorian prejudice against celibacy. Since the 14th century they admit a very easy dispensation from vows of celibacy, by which a monk can marry and return to the world.[85] Nor have they any longer convents of nuns. But a few hermits exist in Kurdistan, who live alone, under obedience to the nearest parish priest. There are also a few pious unmarried women, living with their relations, and occupied with good works. These take a vow of celibacy (always with the possibility of easy dispensation). The only monastery of this rite is the Uniate one of Rabban Hurmīzd.[86]
All these persons (and the laity too) are governed in Church matters by canon law. Nestorian canon law is taken from three main sources. First are the "Western Synods," namely, such synods held in the empire before their schism as they recognize. Among these they count a number held against the Arians—Neo-Cæsarea in 314, Nicæa in 325, Antioch in encœniis (341), Ancyra in 358, and others. Mâruthâ of Maiferḳaṭ made a collection of these in 410. Later the disciplinary canons of Chalcedon (451) were added to them. Some of the acts of Western Synods are generally added to later Nestorian collections. The second main source is the collection of synods held by Katholikoi of Seleucia-Ctesiphon down to the 8th century. These are the "Eastern Synods." An unknown Nestorian collected these between the years 775 and 790. Oskar Braun published the collection in 1900 in a German translation.[87] Later J. B. Chabot published a more satisfactory edition in Syriac with a French version.[88] The book begins with the Synod of Mâr Isaac in 410, and ends with a Synod of Ḥnânyeshu‘ II in 775. An appendix adds the Synod of Timothy I in 790. This book of the Sunhâdaus is the chief source of their canon law. The third source consists of all canons and laws made by Patriarchs and synods since the 8th century. These have not been codified authentically. In the 13th century, Barhebræus made an important collection of Jacobite canon law.[89] Fired by this example, ‘Ebedyeshu‘ Bar Barīkâ,[90] Metropolitan of Nisibis († 1318), undertook the same office for the Nestorians. So he compiled a text-book from the three sources described above. This is the Nomocanon of Ebedjesus, the completest collection of Nestorian canon law.[91] He quotes his sources, but is not always reliable, inasmuch as he sometimes tampers with the texts.[92]
3. The Faith of the Nestorians
The modern Nestorians have kept the faith of their fathers (since they first accepted their heresy) amid Moslems, Kurds, Yazīdīs loyally. For this they deserve all honour. We should wonder at it the more, were it not the common phenomenon among all these smaller Eastern Churches. Their conservatism, their fidelity to their traditions in all things, is their most remarkable characteristic.
Of the Nestorian faith, then, not much need be said. We have little against it, save the one point of their heresy as to our Lord's person. They use in their liturgy the Creed of Nicæa-Constantinople, with verbal changes of no importance,[93] and understand it all (save the one point how the Son of God became man) as we do. This one point has been explained at some length already (pp. 82–86). They believe that there are in Christ two natures (kyâne), two hypostases (ḳnume) and one prosopon (parṣufâ) of union. They reject the Council of Ephesus, declare that they stand for the teaching of Nestorius, count him among their saints (p. 84), and always refuse to our Lady her title Theotókos. They anathematize Cyril of Alexandria and those who agree with him. Therein lies their heresy.[94] Further, they seem to be involved in something like the Iconoclast heresy. They have no holy pictures in their churches or houses, and they abhor the idea of a holy picture.[95] This seems to be a fairly modern development, perhaps under Moslem influence. There are in Uniate Churches around Mosul paintings of saints and angels, made by native artists long before the union.[96] But all Nestorians have a profound veneration for the Cross. They put crosses (not crucifixes) in their churches, on their monuments and documents, and treat these crosses with enormous respect.[97] They admit the Deuterocanonical books of Scripture,[98] grace, freewill, the value of good works.[99] They pray much for the dead and give alms for them; though they are quite willing to assure their Anglican benefactors that they do not hold with the Pope about Purgatory.[100] They honour relics and use dust from the tombs of saints (called ḥnâna, "grace") as a kind of charm.[101] They invoke our Lady and other saints constantly in their liturgy and prayers. They are (like most Easterns) rather vague as to the number of the Sacraments, inasmuch as they have not yet conceived a special class of rites distinct from the large number of what we call Sacramentals. Joseph Assemani thought that they have only three real Sacraments: Baptism, Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders. But they hold the number seven, though (like the Orthodox at one time) they are not quite sure which the seven are. The Nestorian Patriarch Timothy II (1318–1360) gave as the seven Sacraments: (1) Holy Orders; (2) the consecration of a church and altar; (3) Baptism and Holy Oil (= Confirmation); (4) the holy Sacrament of the Body and Blood; (5) the blessing of monks; (6) the Office for the Dead; (7) Marriage. Then he adds as a supplement: "Indulgence, or penance and the forgiving of sins."[102] Mr. Badger says that they now "generally allow": (1) Orders; (2) Baptism; (3) the Oil of Unction; (4) the Oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ; (5) Absolution; (6) the Holy Leaven; (7) the Sign of the Cross.[103] Putting these two lists together, we have all our seven Sacraments, with some additions, such as consecrating a church and the Holy Leaven (see p. 150). Their liturgical books have a form for confession and absolution,[104] but its use is now practically extinct among them. The modern Nestorian does not confess his sins; I am told,[105] because the clergy cannot keep the seal. They believe the Holy Eucharist to be a commemorative sacrifice.[106] In their creed, of course, they have not the Filioque clause. They do not seem to have considered the question of the procession of the Holy Ghost much; sometimes they deny the double procession.[107] But Mr. Badger quotes Nestorian writers who say plainly that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.[108] With regard to what they hold about the Church, it is difficult to understand exactly their position. They certainly believe that they alone hold the true faith as to our Lord's nature and person—that all who did agree with them have fallen away on this point. They say so plainly; they divide Christendom into three sects, the Monophysites, Melkites (including Franks), and the "Easterns" (themselves), who alone "never changed their faith, but kept it as they received it from the Apostles." Both the other sects are refuted from the Bible.[109] So it would follow that all others are heretics, that the whole and only true Church of 'Christ is the tiny handful which obeys Mâr Shim‘un. Yet I doubt whether really they would have so magnificent a courage of their convictions. Probably, especially now under Anglican influence, they have evolved some cloudy kind of Branch theory—themselves being the purest branch. One wonders whether the American Presbyterians and the Danish Lutherans (with the ambiguous Nestorian archdeacon and Lutheran missionary Nestorius George Malech) are branches. And it would be very interesting to know what Mâr Shim‘un really thinks of the orthodoxy, orders and ecclesiastical position of his Anglican advisers.[110]
Needless to say, Nestorians entirely reject the universal primacy and infallibility of the Pope, though they acknowledge him as first of the Patriarchs.[111] If they were consistent they could not give him even this honour, since he is steeped in Ephesian and monohypostatic error, being himself a mighty leader of Ephesian heretics.
Nestorian theology, then, in general, is only half developed and cloudy, as is that of all smaller Eastern Churches. The worst fault of these pious mountaineers is a tendency to assure promiscuous Protestant visitors that at bottom they agree with them on all sorts of points. As so often happens, the danger of Roman propaganda, their fear and dislike of the Uniates, leads them to welcome alliance with anyone who is against the Pope, who assures them that he seeks not to turn them into enslaved Chaldees.
4. Nestorian Rites
Their rites and liturgy are perhaps the most interesting thing about the Nestorians. Certainly most of the interest which the West takes in this obscure little sect is because of its liturgy. For these people in their remote mountains still keep and use one of the great historic rites of Christendom.
The East Syrian rite evolved in Edessa before the 4th century. Saint Ephrem used and quotes it.[112] The Syriac (Jacobite) poet James of Srug († 521)[113] and Philoxenos of Hierapolis († 523)[114] gave further information about the East Syrian rite of their time. Two fragments written in the 6th century in a Coptic monastery in Egypt (now in the British Museum) show an unexpected use of what is fundamentally the East Syrian rite in that country,[115] apparently by Nestorian colonies (p. 104).
The origin of this rite is much discussed. Liturgies are not composed as original works at some definite date; a new rite does not suddenly spring out of nothing. Their development is always gradual modification from an earlier form, till we come back to the original rite, fluid in details but uniform in type, of the first three centuries.[116] If we suppose the generally admitted principle that the origin of all Eastern rites is either Antioch or Alexandria, we must count this one as (remotely) Antiochene. It certainly does not come from Egypt. Moreover, as opposed to the Alexandrine group, it has Antiochene features, such as the litany-form of public prayer; though the Intercession comes before the Consecration.[117] The Calendar, too, shows traces of Antiochene arrangement. On the other hand, if it is Antiochene, it is only remotely so. If originally it was the rite of Antioch[118] which came to Edessa, it evolved there into something very unlike its original form. The East Syrian rite lacks a great number of peculiarities which we associate with Antioch. So some writers do not see sufficient reason to class it under Antioch at all. It stands apart from the great liturgical group of Apostolic Constitutions VIII, St. James, the Jacobite, Byzantine, and Armenian rites; and so they count it as forming a class of its own.[119]
This ancient Edessene or East Syrian rite then naturally spread to Persia[120] with the Edessene missionaries. It was used in the Persian Church, and then by all Nestorians. It is their speciality; while Jacobites have the liturgy of JerusalemAntioch, and the Orthodox since the 13th century that of Constantinople.[121]
The books used in this rite have not all been translated. The holy liturgy in the strict sense (the Eucharistic service) is naturally what has most been studied. There are many versions and editions of this (p. 151, n. 4). Of the other functions only fragments can be read in a European language.
The services of the East Syrian rite are first the Divine Office (the Canonical Hours), which should be said daily in every church. They are Ramshâ (dramshâ = "at evening") corresponding to our Vespers[122] or to the Byzantine ἑσπερινόν, sung just after sunset. Then comes the Subâ‘â ("perfecting"), Compline or ἀπόδειπνον. This is now sung only during the great Lent, at the "Fast of the Ninevites" (p. 148), and on certain vigils, when it is joined to Ramshâ. The night-office (Nocturns, μεσονύκτιον) is Ṣluthâ dlilyâ ("prayer at night"); then comes Shahrâ (vigil), to be sung at dawn (Lauds, ὄρθρος). The first day-prayer is Ṣluthâ dṣafrâ ("morning-prayer," our Prime). As a matter of fact, the night-office is now rarely said. Shahrâ and Ṣluthâ dṣafrâ are joined together as the morning prayer, and the Ṣluthâ dlilyâ, if said at all, is also joined to this. There are, then, in practice two prayers in the day—at morning and evening. The people are summoned to these by the sound of a wooden Semantron,[123] and attend very religiously at the public morning and evening prayers.[124] The other services are, of course, first of all the holy liturgy; then baptism, ordination, marriage and other sacraments, funerals, the consecration of churches, and various blessings, sacramentals and so on.
The books in which these rites may be found are many and confused. It is a result of the archaic state of the Nestorian Church that its books have not yet been codified and arranged in an ordered scheme. There are, as a matter of fact, various alternative collections of prayers and services which overlap; so that the same matter may be found in different books. In this primitive state of liturgical books there does not seem any reason why a man should not write out the prayers of any collection of services he likes and call it by some suitable name. The usual books are: for the holy liturgy the Ṭaksâ (τάξις)[125] of the liturgies. With this are often bound up the Ṭaksâ d'mâdâ (rite of baptism), the Ṭaksâ dsyâmīdâ[126] (rite of ordination), and other services, to make a book corresponding to the Byzantine εὐχολόγιον.[127] The deacon's part of the service is sometimes written in a separate book (Shamâshuthâ, διακονικόν) . The lessons are contained in three books; the Ḳeryânâ ("readings") contain the Old Testament and Acts, the Ewangeliyun, the Gospels, and the Shlīḥâ ("Apostle"), the Epistles of St. Paul. The Choir uses the Dauīdâ (Psalter), the Ḥudrâ ("circle") containing the variable chants for all Sundays, the Kâshkul ("containing all") for the week-days, and the Turgâmâ ("interpretation"), in which are found the verses sung between the lessons, like our Gradual. These books also contain part of what is wanted for the Divine Office. They are further supplemented by the Gazâ ("treasury"),[128] the Wardâ ("rose"),[129] which supply certain variable hymns and anthems; also the Ḳdâm wadathar ("before and after"), containing selections from the psalter and prayers for Sundays and week-days. The Abu-ḥalīm (called after its composer) has collects for the end of the Night-prayer on Sundays. The Bauthâ dnīnwâye ("nocturn of the Ninevites") has metrical hymns ascribed to St. Efrem, said at the Fast of the Ninevites. Besides these are books containing special offices, those of baptism (‘mâdâ) and ordination (Syâmīdâ), mentioned above, those for the marriage-service (Brâkâ, "blessing"), for the burial of clergy (Kahnuthâ, "priesthood") and laymen (‘anīdâ, "funeral"). The Ṭaksâ dḥusâyâ ("rite of mercy") gives the services for reconciling penitents and for absolution. There are other books containing other functions.[130]
From this it will be seen that the Nestorian liturgical books are in a bewildering state of confusion. It is no light matter to put together any given service from the various books used in it. Nor do they always know their own books. The difficulty is avoided to a great extent by the fact that singers know vast quantities of the services by heart.[131] The chief books have been printed (in Syriac) by the Anglican mission.[132] The Dominicans at Mosul and the Lazarist missionaries publish the Chaldæan books, which
FIG. 4.—THE PATRIARCHAL CHURCH AT ḲUDSHANIS.
(From a photograph by the Rev. F. N. Heazell.)
correspond, but have been revised and corrected at Rome. These Chaldæan books also are arranged on a more systematic way, under the influence of our liturgical books.
Nestorian churches are mostly small and poor; though some are of considerable antiquity and archæological interest, and a few fairly large and handsome. The Moslem law, till the other day, was that Christians might repair their existing churches, but not build new ones.[133] On the outside the churches have no conspicuous sign to proclaim what they are (and so attract the fanaticism of Kurds and Turks)—only a small plain cross over the door, which is kissed by people as they go in. A special feature, now almost a recognized tradition (at least in Turkey), is that the only entrance to the church is by one very low and narrow door, about three feet high (often less), through which one stoops and crouches to go in. This is said to be so made in order that everyone be forced to bow as he enters the holy place. The real reason is no doubt to prevent Kurds driving their cattle into the church. Inside, the nave is divided from the sanctuary by a wall right up to the roof which is pierced by an arched opening about five or six feet wide. The division, then, is more marked than in Byzantine churches by the Ikonostasion. There is a curtain which can be drawn across this arch, sometimes doors as well. Outside the sanctuary wall is a platform, as high as the sanctuary; then steps down and a low wall broken in the middle, something like our communion-rail. Against this low wall are one or more tables (not really altars) on which rest books and a cross, kissed by the faithful on entering and leaving. The choir stands in a group on one side in front of this low wall. The Divine Office is sung in the nave; sometimes (as in the Patriarchal church at Ḳudshanis) there is an open-air chapel, partly roofed over, at the side of the church, with another table for the cross, where the office is sung in summer. Inside the sanctuary[134] is a raised platform under a canopy. On this stands the altar, generally adorned with a plain cross, two candles and the gospel-book. A lectern for reading the gospel is moved to the sanctuary-arch during the liturgy. There are cupboards in the sanctuary for the holy oils and vessels. The baptistery forms a room leading out of the sanctuary or nave.
PLAN OF THE PATRIARCHAL CHURCH AT ḲUDSHANIS.
A, Sanctuary; B, Baptistry; C, Place for baking the holy bread; D, Entrance (by ladder); E, Room where Rabban Yuḥanân (Yonan) lived.
It is often also used as a vestry, and generally has a stove for baking the bread to be consecrated.[135] Nestorian churches are called after our Lady (Mârt Maryam), the apostles or other saints, very often after a martyr of the Persian persecutions or their own hermits or bishops. Everyone takes off his shoes in church, but the turban or ṭarbūsh only during services. The clergy in ordinary life do not wear a special dress; in the mountains they often have a black turban. Bishops generally wear a long robe, like a cassock, and the usual turban. The tonsure, though prescribed by the canons, at least for monks, is not now worn; but all the clergy have a beard. To shave the beard is a sign of degradation and a punishment inflicted by the Patriarch for certain offences.[136]
The universal liturgical vestment is the tunic, called kuthinâ (χιτών) corresponding to the στοιχάριον or alb. It is girdled by a belt, zunârâ (ζωνάριον). Subdeacon and deacon wear a stole (urârâ, ὠράριον); the subdeacon winds it from the left shoulder under the right arm,[137] the deacon's stole hangs straight down from the left shoulder. The priest's (and bishop's) stole is made like the Byzantine ἐπιτραχήλιον, hanging down in front like ours, but sewn together (or rather one piece) with a hole through which to put the head. The garment corresponding to our chasuble (ḳafīla, paḳīlâ, painâ, ma‘prâ) is the same as the Byzantine φαινόλιον, except that it is not permanently joined in front. It looks then exactly like our cope without a hood. It is worn by priests and bishops, and is used as both cope and chasuble. They have no omophorion.[138] Bishops wear a kind of embroidered amice, called birunâ, over the head; they carry a pastoral staff (ḥuṭrâ) and a small cross with which they bless the people. They have no liturgically fixed colours.[139]
The East Syrian Calendar is based on the Julian reckoning (Old Style), for the months, and on the "Era of the Greeks,"[140] namely from 311 b.c., for the years. They now know and begin to use the ordinary Christian reckoning for the years. The ecclesiastical year is divided into nine periods of, more or less, seven weeks each. Each of these is called a shabu'd ("seven"). The year begins with Subârâ ("annunciation") on December 1;[141] Subârâ has four Sundays as preparation for Christmas, and so corresponds exactly to our Advent. The second Shabu‘â is of the Epiphany; the third is the Great Fast (Lent) beginning the seventh Monday before Easter; the fourth is the Shabu‘â of the Resurrection (to Pentecost); the fifth that of the Apostles (six Sundays); the last of these Sundays is the Sunday of the twelve Apostles and the first of the next Shabu‘â (of summer). This Shabu‘â (the sixth) lasts till the seventh Sunday after that of the Apostles. Then begins the seventh Shabu‘â, of Elias. Two Sundays of Moses and four of the Dedication (of the Churches) form the eighth and ninth Shabu‘e.[142] There are four fasts in the year: Subârâ (Advent), lasting twenty-five days (counted back from Christmas); the Fast of the Ninevites, namely the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday beginning twenty days before the Great Fast, in memory of the penance of Nineveh when Jonas preached; then the Great Fast, forty-nine days before Easter;[143] and the Fast of St. Mary from August 1 to August 15.[144] The fasts include Sundays, and are kept, as by all Eastern people, exceedingly severely. Every day is what we should call a "black fast," including abstinence from flesh-meat, lacticinia, eggs and all animal produce. All Wednesdays and Fridays are days of abstinence.
The chief feast is, of course, Easter (‘ad‘idâ kabīrâ, "great feast"). Christmas (December 25) is the "little feast" (‘ad‘idâ ḳatīnâ). The Epiphany (January 6) is also a great day; it is the Feast of the Baptism of our Lord, as with all Easterns. Other great feasts are Lady-day, Ascension-day, Whitsunday, the Transfiguration, Death of St. Mary (August 15), Holy Rood (September 13), etc. The main part of their Calendar consists of movable feasts, not fixed to a day of the month, but falling on a certain week-day after a Sunday—mainly determined by Easter. Thus all Fridays are feasts of great Saints: the Friday after the first Sunday after Epiphany is St. Peter and St. Paul, the next Friday the Four Evangelists, the next St. Stephen, and so on. Mar Addai is on the fifth Sunday after Easter, Mar Mari on the second Friday of the summer Shabu‘â. Mar Nestorius comes with Diodore and Theodore as the "Greek Doctors" on the Friday after the fourth Sunday after Epiphany. Maundy Thursday is the "Passover," Good Friday is "Friday of Suffering" (aliturgical), Holy Saturday "the Great Sabbath" or "Sabbath of Light."[145]
We have already noted the order of the Divine Office, now practically morning and evening prayer (p. 142). It consists of psalms, collects, anthems, and many special compositions, hymns in rhythmical prose like the Byzantine τροπάρια. The psalter is divided into twenty portions called hulâle ("praises") like καθίσματα. The Lord's Prayer and psalms are often farced. All the services are said in classical Syriac, of which the common people understand perhaps as much as modern Greeks or Russians do of their services. All is sung in the strange enharmonic cadences which Eastern people know by heart. A careful and interesting description of the office will be found in Maclean and Browne: The Catholicos of the East.[146] This book is so easily accessible that it does not seem worth while to repeat the account here. Instead, as a specimen of Nestorian prayer, the Lâk mârâ ("Thee, O Lord") may serve; it is a short responsory occurring constantly in all their services: "Thee, Lord of all, we confess; and thee, Jesus Christ, we glorify; for thou art the quickener of our bodies, and thou art the saviour of our souls.*I was glad when they said unto me, We will go into the house of the Lord.*Thee, O Lord, etc.*Glory be to the Father, etc. From everlasting to everlasting, Amen.*Thee, O Lord, etc."[147]
In all Christian Churches the Holy Eucharist is the chief rite. The Nestorians celebrate it rarely, on the chief feasts—not even every Sunday.[148] It is celebrated early in the morning, except on fast-days, when it sometimes comes in the afternoon. Everyone who receives Communion must be fasting from midnight. The celebrant and deacon should by law first have taken part in the evening prayer the day before, and in the night and morning prayer. Normally there is only one Liturgy in the same church on one day.
They have a curious belief about the "holy leaven,"[149] sometimes even counting this as one of the seven Sacraments (p. 138). Namely, they say that St. John the Baptist kept some of the water which fell from our Lord at his baptism. He gave this to St. John the Apostle. At the last supper our Lord gave St. John two loaves. St. John mixed one with the baptism water and with the blood which flowed from our Lord on the cross. The Apostles then ground this to pieces, mixed it with flour and salt, and divided it amongst themselves, so that the leaven of the body and blood of our Lord should always remain in the Church. The Nestorians believe that they have this still, alone among Christians. Nestorius, when he was deposed, took it with him and left the West without it. They renew this "holy leaven" each Maundy Thursday. What remains from last year is mixed with fresh flour, salt and oil by the priest and deacon, in a special service. It is then kept in a vessel in the sanctuary all the year, and a small portion is mixed with the bread for the Holy Eucharist before each liturgy. No liturgy may be celebrated without it.
Most Eastern liturgies begin with a preparation of the bread and wine to be consecrated.[150] The Nestorians begin at the very beginning by first baking the bread. The celebrant and the deacon[151] mix flour and yeast[152] with a little oil and some warm water, in the baptistery or other place where the oven for this purpose may be. The celebrant breaks off some for the antidoron and some to mix with that of the next liturgy after this one.[153] He brings the vessel containing the holy leaven from the sanctuary and mixes a small portion of that with what he has prepared. So he makes the loaves, at least three (there should be seven), stamps each with a wooden stamp, puts a little incense on the fire and bakes them. Then they are put on the paten (much larger than ours) and carried to a recess in the sanctuary. He pours wine into the chalice with water. During all this preparation he says psalms (three ḥulâle, Ps. i.–xxx.) and prayers.[154] The deacon sweeps the sanctuary and makes all ready. To save time all this is generally done while the choir are saying morning prayer. Then the semantron is struck and the people are summoned to the holy liturgy.
There are now three liturgies, those of the "holy apostles (Addai and Mari)," "of Nestorius," and "of Theodore the Interpreter." Once they had others. Liturgies "of Bar Ṣaumâ," "of Narse," "of Diodore of Tarsus" are mentioned, but are no longer extant.[155] Of the three now used, the liturgy of the Apostles[156] is the normal one, presumably the oldest, which represents the ancient East Syrian rite by direct descent. The other two are fragments completed as to the rest by parts of the liturgy of the Apostles. In other words, when they are used, certain parts of the normal rite are left out and the corresponding parts of one of these two are substituted. The Ordo communis (that is, the proanaphoral part and the prayers after Communion) is always that of the Apostles. The liturgies of Theodore and Nestorius are practically only alternative anaphoras, with a few special prayers in the Ordo communis. All Nestorian liturgies have been translated and edited many times.[157] None of the ascriptions of these three rites (to Addai and Mari, Theodore, Nestorius), except perhaps the last, is to be taken seriously. The normal one is, as we have noted, merely the old rite of Edessa, presumably having come there originally from Antioch, but considerably modified in the East (p. 141). The Theodore anaphora is a not very important variant of this, with, however, one important difference (p. 155). The so-called Nestorius anaphora is considerably different. It has long been suspected of being a foreign element, imported independently from somewhere else. Dr. A. Baumstark has now, perhaps, solved the riddle. By a careful comparison he shows its close resemblance, not only in arrangement, but in many liturgical forms, with the Byzantine St. Basil rite. He concludes that it is nothing but the old rite of Constantinople, with heretical modifications, which may be the work of Nestorius himself, translated into Syriac by Mârabâ I (536–552; see p. 82).[158]
On the Sundays from Advent to Palm Sunday the liturgy of Theodore is used; on five days—namely, the Epiphany, St. John the Baptist (Friday after Epiphany), the Greek Doctors (Friday after the fourth Sunday after Epiphany), Wednesday of the Fast of the Ninevites (p. 148), and Maundy Thursday—that of Nestorius. On all other days the Holy Eucharist, if celebrated, has the rite of the Apostles. The order of this, in outline, is as follows: After the preparation of the offerings the celebrant and deacon begin the Enarxis.[159] They say the beginning of the Gloria in excelsis (l.c. ii. 14), the Lord's Prayer, some psalms farced, the "anthem of the sanctuary," Lâk mârâ (p. 149), Ps. xxv. 6 ("Lavabo"), and a few other prayers. Then begins the liturgy of the catechumens. The Trisagion is sung. Two lessons (normally from the Old Testament and Acts) are read by lectors at the platform outside the sanctuary wall, inside the low wall.[160] An antiphon, called shurâyâ ("beginning"), generally consisting of a farced psalm (προκείμενον, "gradual"), is sung. The deacon reads the "apostle" (always from an epistle of St. Paul), and the choir answers: "Glory be to the Lord of Paul." Incense is blessed and burnt, the Alleluia is sung with verses called zumârâ ("chant"), then a long anthem (turgâmâ, "interpretation"), and the celebrant reads the gospel of the day. The "anthem of the gospel" follows, ending the liturgy of the catechumens.
The liturgy of the faithful begins with a long litany (the Antiochene-Byzantine συναπτή).[161] This is the prayer of the faithful. It follows the usual order—petitions for all classes. The people answer: "O our Lord, have mercy on us," and then to a second list of petitions: "Amen." It ends like the Antiochene and Byzantine forms: "Let us commit our souls and one another's souls to the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost." Meanwhile, the celebrant incenses the altar and puts on the ma‘prâ (chasuble) which has been lying on it. He says a prayer aloud, summing up the petitions of the prayer of the faithful. A blessing by the celebrant (the "Inclination") follows, and then, rather late, the deacon says the form of dismissing the catechumens.[162] Now the bread and wine are brought to the altar; they are again offered and covered with a veil. The "anthem of the mysteries" is sung; meanwhile the celebrant says a number of prayers preparing to offer the sacrifice. Here follows the Creed.[163] The preparation for the anaphora consists of prayers said aloud by the deacon, and a number of others said silently by the celebrant. The great Intercession follows; they count the ḳudâshâ as beginning at this point.[164] The place of the Intercession is an important element in classifying liturgies. In the normal Antiochene family it follows the Consecration; at Alexandria it comes after Sursum corda, during what we should call the Preface. Its place in the East Syrian rite, before the Sursum corda, as soon as the gifts are brought to the altar, following (or a part of) the offertoryact, is now unique, though there are reasons which make this place seem natural.[165] The diptychs are read—namely, a list of petitions for the church, katholikos, bishops, clergy, kings, and so on (diptychs of the living), then those of the dead.[166] To each clause the people answer: "Amen." The diptychs of the dead contain a very long list of saints. The form is: "Let us pray and beseech God the Lord of all that this oblation be accepted for all the just and righteous fathers who were well-pleasing in his sight (let us pray). Also for the memorial of Adam and Abel. …" " And of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. …" There is first a list of saints of the Old Testament. Then: "And for the memorial of the Lady Mary, the Holy Virgin who bore Christ our Lord and our Saviour." Then follow St. John the Baptist, St. Peter, St. Paul, the evangelists and apostles; "Mâr Addai and Mâr Mari, the apostles who were the converters of this Eastern region"; St. Stephen; a long list of the old Persian Katholikoi, beginning with Papa, "our holy fathers the 208 bishops who were assembled in the city of Nicæa for the raising up of the true faith"; and a great number of East Syrian and Persian bishops, monks and martyrs. The people answer: "And our Lord make us all to partake with them in his grace and mercy for ever. Amen." After the Intercession comes the kiss of peace. The deacon warns the people to attend, the gifts are unveiled, and the anaphora begins. The celebrant blesses the people with the form: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ …" (2 Cor. xiii. 13).[167] Then: "Lift up your minds." R.: "Unto thee, O God of Abraham and Isaac and Israel, O glorious King." Priest: "The oblation is offered unto God the Lord of all." R.: "It is meet and just." The priest says a short silent prayer, and then as a Ghântâ:[168] "Worthy of praise from every mouth …" He mentions the "holy cherubim and spiritual seraphim," then (ḳânunâ): "shouting and praising without ceasing, and crying out to another, and saying." The choir sings: "Holy, holy, holy …" A short prayer follows, and leads to the "signing of the mysteries"; then follows the Epiklesis.
We have come to what is the amazing point in the Nestorian rite. The liturgy of the Apostles does not contain the words of institution. This is naturally a grave scandal to the friends of this Church. The Anglican editors of their liturgy have fitted in here the narrative of the Last Supper containing the words. It interrupts the prayer most awkwardly.[169] It is often said that the Nestorians always recited the words of institution, but did not write them in their books, through excessive reverence. This does not seem likely. Their prayers from the Sanctus to the Epiklesis form a consecutive whole; there is no sign of anything left out, and no room for an insertion. It should, however, be noted that Narse, in the 5th century, mentions the words of institution.[170] The liturgies of Nestorius and Theodore have the words of institution. It would seem, then, that, no doubt because of a great insistence on the Epiklesis as the "form" of consecration, they thought it a matter of indifference whether the words of institution were said or not. The Anglicans teach their pupils to say them scrupulously; but they admit that, "unfortunately, it is not uncommon now for the more ignorant priests altogether to omit this essential part of the Sacrament."[171] The Epiklesis of the liturgy of the Apostles is vague: "And may there come, O my Lord, thine Holy Spirit and rest upon this offering of thy servants and bless it and hallow it, that it be to us, O my Lord, for the pardon of offences and the remission of sins, and for the great hope of resurrection from the dead, and for new life in the kingdom of heaven, with all those who have been well-pleasing in thy sight." Certainly, if we look for a categorical "form" of the Sacrament, we shall have difficulty in finding it in this liturgy.[172] Some prayers and psalms, a washing of hands and incensing lead to a complicated fraction and commixture. The mixture is made by dipping. There is a blessing, the Lord's Prayer with an introduction, and the usual verse: "For thine is the kingdom, etc.," and an embolism, an elevation with the form: "The holy things to the holies is fitting in perfection." Then, while anthems are sung, the clergy and people make their Communion. Normally the two kinds are received separately; the celebrant gives the holy bread, the deacon the chalice. The forms of administration are: "The body of our Lord to N.N.[173] for the pardon of offences," "The precious blood for the pardon of offences, the spiritual feast for everlasting life to N.N. (as before)." Quite small children receive Communion, by intinction. The thanksgiving consists of one verse by the deacon (a much shortened litany) with the answer: "Glory be to him for his unspeakable gift," a few prayers, another kiss of peace, and now (in practice) the Communion of the celebrant and deacon.[174] There is a final blessing (no formula of dismissal), and the antidoron (see p. 150) called mkafrânâ is distributed. So the liturgy ends.[175] It appears that most people do not wait for the end. Immediately after their Communion they go to the door of the baptistery, take the mkafrânâ,[176] and go home. Also they often come late, so that generally the lessons (except the Gospel) are not said at all, and the Gospel is moved from its proper place, read and explained by a homily just before the Communion.[177] The Nestorians do not now reserve the Holy Eucharist at all, and have no provision for Communion of the sick.
The Baptism service is a long rite modelled closely on the holy liturgy. It has an "Apostle," Gospel, Creed, Litany, "Sursum Corda," Sanctus, Epiklesis, and so on. It takes place after the liturgy; many children are baptized together, private baptism is not allowed. Soon after birth there is a curious imitation of baptism; water is blessed, and the child is washed in it. This is called "signing." Then it waits till the next feast, when there will be a liturgy in the Church and, following that, a general public baptism. The child's name is given at the "signing." In the Baptism rite the children are anointed all over with olive oil (oil of the catechumens) . The Nestorians have a holy oil believed to come from St. John the Evangelist, like the holy leaven. This is kept in the sanctuary, renewed as the leaven is, and a small portion of it is mixed with the oil of the catechumens. At the actual moment of baptism the child is held facing the east over the font; the priest dips it three times, saying: "N. is baptized in the name of the Father (R.: Amen), in the name of the Son (Amen), in the name of the Holy Ghost, for ever (Amen)." It is confirmed at once by laying-on the right hand. No chrism or other oil is now used for Confirmation.[178]
The ordination of clerks below the rank of deacon[179] is now obsolete. Deacons, priests, and bishops are ordained by layingon the right hand, with a suitable form. Several other bishops assist the Patriarch or Metropolitan in ordaining a bishop; they lay their hands on his side. The Nestorians have the rite of vesting the subject during the ordination service; but they do not appear to have an anointing. We have seen that they have what seem to be ordination forms for making a deacon an archdeacon, a bishop a Patriarch, and so on (pp. 134–135).[180] In the marriage service they crown the spouses with threads of red, blue, and white, and have several curious customs.[181] They have far-reaching impediments of consanguinity and affinity,[182] but allow divorce for many reasons.[183] Their burial service is very long. It differs for clergy and laity. They sing anthems and psalms (special ones for all manner of special cases—a man murdered, drowned, betrothed, etc.), and have many prayers for the dead. They offer the holy liturgy for the repose of their souls.[184]
And here we take leave of the pathetic little Church. The curious customs, superstitions, popular traditions of the modern Nestorians do not concern the purpose of this book. An account of them may be read in the work of Dean Maclean[185] and Mr. Browne, to which I am already considerably indebted.[186] The Nestorians have a wonderful history. It is strange to realize that out there, among Kurds and Yazīdīs, there still exists a remnant of that ancient Church, mother of the great army of martyrs whose glorious blood hallowed the Persian soil, the Church which spread the Christian name deep into the heart of China. That they have kept the Christian faith for thirteen centuries of tragic isolation gives them a right to all our respect and affection. They, too, are our brothers and sheep of Christ, though they are imprisoned in the fold of Nestorius. Our last hope for them is that they may come out of that other fold back to the one flock. Only, to do that they must accept Ephesus and call the mother of their Lord by her right name. There are many tragedies in the long story of the people of Christ; not the least of them is that Bar Ṣaumâ of Edessa once quarrelled with his bishop Rabbulâ.
Summary
This chapter has described the Nestorian Church as it exists to-day. It was in a sense rediscovered by Western Europe in the 19th century, first by explorers who went to Mesopotamia to find Assyrian remains. Since then it has been the object of great interest and of many missionary expeditions. Besides the Catholic missions, which have been there for a long time and belong to a different category, the chief of these are the American Presbyterian mission at Urmi and the Anglican mission at Amadia. The Orthodox Russians, too, have a mission here. There are now about 100,000 Nestorians living in Kurdistan and around Lake Urmi on either side of the Turkish-Persian frontier. Their religious (and to a great extent civil) head is the Patriarch and Katholikos, who always takes the name Mâr Shim‘un. Under him are one Metropolitan and ten bishops. The Patriarchal and Episcopal lines are now practically hereditary. They have a hierarchy of the usual Eastern type, but do not now in practice ordain anyone below the rank of deacon. Priests and deacons have no law of celibacy at all. There are a few monks and nuns, no monasteries. Their faith differs from ours in the great point of our Lord's person. They have a kind of iconoclasm, except that they greatly reverence the holy Cross. Naturally they reject the primacy of the Pope; their attitude about the Filioque seems undetermined. They use the old Eastern Syrian rite in classical Syriac. Their divine office is now practically reduced to morning and evening prayer. They have three forms of liturgy, the normal one "of the Holy Apostles," and supplementary anaphoras of Theodore and of Nestorius (this, apparently a version of the old Byzantine rite) used on a few days. The most curious points in their rite are that they begin the liturgy actually by making and baking the bread, their curious superstition about the "holy leaven" which they mix therewith, and, strangest of all, that their normal liturgy does not contain the words of institution.
- ↑ Narrative of a Residence in Koordistan and on the Site of Ancient Niniveh, London, 2 vols., 1836.
- ↑ Nineveh and its Remains, London, 2 vols., 1849.
- ↑ Op. cit. i. 275–279.
- ↑ Op. cit. chap. viii. (i. 240–269).
- ↑ This is the idea of Dr. Asahel Grant, of the American Independent Board of Missions: The Nestorians, or the Lost Tribes, London, 1841.
- ↑ It may be noted that this is the normal state of the Turkish Empire. All its more mountainous and wilder parts are practically independent and at the mercy of the strongest tribe which dwells there. The authority of the Government obtains in the towns where there is a garrison, and as far round as the energy of the local Wali cares to enforce it. If he neglects his duty (most Walis do), there may be anarchy within sight of the gates.
- ↑ Except, of course, the Catholics, who had been there for centuries.
- ↑ Ainsworth: Travels and Researches in Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Chaldæa and Armenia, London, 1842, 2 vols.
- ↑ G. P. Badger: The Nestorians and their Rituals, ed. by J. M. W. Neale, London, 1852, 2 vols.
- ↑ A. Riley: Report on the Foundation of the Archbishop's Mission to the Assyrian Church (London, 1886), p. 24.
- ↑ E. L. Cutts: Christians under the Crescent in Asia (S.P.C.K., 1877).
- ↑ Riley: op. cit.
- ↑ In 1903 they decided to abandon Persia, leaving it to the Russians, and to make their centre at Van on the Turkish side (Heazell and Margoliouth: Kurds and Christians, London, 1913, pp. 165–168). Later still (1910) they proposed to move to Amadia, north of Mosul (ib. 209–212).
- ↑ G. D. Malech: History of the Syrian Nation (Minneapolis, U.S.A., 1910), pp. 378–390.
- ↑ Ib. p. 342.
- ↑ Avril: La Chaldée chrétienne, p. 22.
- ↑ The Russians claimed 20,000 converts in 1900. They built an Orthodox Church at Urrai, founded forty parishes and sixty schools. See the Échos d'Orient (L'Église Nestorienne, by A. Ratel), vol. vii. (1904), p. 349. It seems that practically all Nestorians in Persia turned Orthodox, though most appear to have gone back since (Kurds and Christians, pp. 140–141).
- ↑ E.g. Malech: op. cit. p. 325.
- ↑ Dr. Perkins and Abraham Malech did the New Testament into modern colloquial Syriac.
- ↑ In modern Syriac, Urmi, 1848.
- ↑ Ib. 1854.
- ↑ This is just what happened in the cases of Protestant missions to the Orthodox. They too did not at first attack the official Church; but did eventually form rival religious bodies (Orth. Eastern Church, p. 256). Of course, not all the children who attend the Presbyterian schools among Nestorians join their sect.
- ↑ George David Malech: History of the Syrian Nation, etc. (op. cit. p. 119 n. 1).
- ↑ Op. cit. p. 383.
- ↑ P. 385.
- ↑ P. 353.
- ↑ P. 357.
- ↑ Pp. 365, 366. See also the Patriarch's letter of Aug. 17, 1908, p. 367.
- ↑ Pp. 378–380.
- ↑ P. 386.
- ↑ P. 381.
- ↑ P. 359.
- ↑ He sent his book to be edited by Dr. Neale.
- ↑ E.g. Badger: The Nestorians and their Rituals, vol. iii., note 1, p. 403.
- ↑ For instance: vol. ii. p. 425, n. 25: "Had Mr. Badger been more practically acquainted with the Filioque controversy, perhaps he would have written this paragraph differently." Note 31 (ib.): "It is rather strange to have the point of Nestorian heresy alleged in proof of the Twenty-first Article." Note 14 (ib. p. 424): "The flat downright heresy of this passage is well worthy notice."
- ↑ This point is quite clear. See Riley's Report, p. 12, n. 1.
- ↑ Assyrian Mission Quarterly Paper (London, Church House and S.P.C.K.), since 1890. The Rev. F. N. Heazell and Mrs. Margoliouth have edited a selection of extracts from this: Kurds and Christians (London, 1913). See here, p. 22: "We are not, as they feared, only another and better sort of proselytizers."
- ↑ See the correspondence in A. Riley: op. cit. pp. 25–28.
- ↑ This is a curious point. Apparently the Nestorians who know this fill in the omitted passages by hand. But the names of Nestorius, Bar Ṣaumâ, and other heretics are printed in Brightman's edition of the Liturgy (Eastern Liturgies, 278–279).
- ↑ I have commented on this odd name, now nearly always used by the Anglican missionaries, at p. 7.
- ↑ The Doctrinal Position of the Assyrian Church (S.P.C.K., 1908).
- ↑ The Anglican recommendation comes from Gerasimos of Antioch (afterwards of Jerusalem, † 1897). I do not know how far the present Arab Patriarch, Gregory VII, approves of what his Greek predecessor did.
- ↑ "Catholic Church," of course, in some Anglican sense. We do not expect Anglicans to act on our theory; but one may surely expect them to act on their own.
- ↑ Their answer to this is very typical. They say: "But Protestant Dissenters have no bishops." It is the curious Anglican idea that to have a bishop makes a sect all right, or nearly all right. The Arians had bishops. Would they think it lawful to co-operate with an Arian sect?
- ↑ They are nearly as cross with the Orthodox converts. They talk about the "Russian schism" in Persia, and rejoice to find "signs of repentance" among those who turned Orthodox. They contrast with the "schism" the "old Church," meaning the Nestorians (Kurds and Christians, p. 153). Do they really think that sect older than the Orthodox Church?
- ↑ This curious attitude seems characteristic of High Anglicans. Mr. Parry was sent on a mission to the Jacobites in 1892 (p. 335). He knows that "intercommunion with a Church excommunicated by the Holy Orthodox Church is for us out of the question, until the faith as expounded at Chalcedon be formally acknowledged by her" (Six Months in a Syrian Monastery, London, 1895, p. 312). Yet he abhors the Uniates, says they "cannot be considered but in the light of a schismatic body" (ib. 130), and always calls the Jacobites the "old Church" (e.g. p. 208). One wonders whether, if a Methodist joined the Church of England, Mr. Parry would consider that he left the old Church to join a schismatic body.
- ↑ Aḏarbaiǵān. Most of these appear to have gone over lately to the Russian Church (p. 119). I do not know how many have yet come back.
- ↑ From the root ‘ašar (Arabic: "ten"), a group of ten families.
- ↑ Verfassung, u.s.w., p. 268.
- ↑ Herzog and Hauck: Prot. Realenz. (article by Petermann and Kessler), vol. xiii. p. 733.
- ↑ Namely, 10,000 in Persia, 40,000 Turkish "rayahs," 50,000 ‘ashīrah Nestorians (La Turquie d'Asie, Paris, 1892, vol. ii. p. 650). The Anglican mission agrees with this (Kurds and Christians, p. 12).
- ↑ In Badger, op. cit. ii. pp. 49–51.
- ↑ Ib. p. 49.
- ↑ Op. cit. i. 178.
- ↑ ii. 378.
- ↑ Op. cit. i. 178.
- ↑ Maclean and Browne: The Catholicos of the East, p. 150.
- ↑ So the Danish Lutherans in their commission to N. G. Malech tell him to "preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ in accordance with the doctrines of the Evangelical Lutheran Church" (p. 121).
- ↑ Badger: op. cit. i. p. 259.
- ↑ The millah (millet) of the Nestorians.
- ↑ Maclean and Browne: op. cit. 188.
- ↑ Barā‘ah, the diploma recognizing the Patriarch, and giving him authority from the State. See Silbernagl: Verfassung u. gegenw. Bestand. p. 249. I have seen a photograph of the present Patriarch's berat.
- ↑ Called in Syriac malkâ, Arabic malik.
- ↑ Arab.: nāṭir alkursi; Syr.: nâṭurâ kursya (modern = nâṭir kursi), "guardian of the throne."
- ↑ Called also Nazarites (nṣiri).
- ↑ However, this principle is not observed strictly. It seems that, in practice, abstinence for some time before ordination is considered sufficient (Dr. Wigram).
- ↑ Sometimes the Patriarch chooses his own successor. The late Patriarch chose the present one a fortnight before his own death.
- ↑ St. Artemius, martyr under Julian in 361; Nilles: Kalendarium manuale, i. 304. A plan of this church is given at p. 146.
- ↑ The Nestorian theory is that there are five Patriarchates: Rome, Alexandria, Ephesus (since moved to Constantinople), Antioch, Seleucia-Ctesiphon—not Jerusalem (Maclean and Browne: op. cit. 189). How impossible this is will be seen from Orth. Eastern Church, chap, i., and from the account of the original position of their Katholikos. On no historical basis is he a Patriarch at all.
- ↑ Possibly by a synod of all the bishops. But such a measure would be a revolution, for which it is always impossible to draw up rules. It would almost certainly cause a schism.
- ↑ See at Ḳudshanis, including most of the "tribal" Nestorians; Maclean and Browne, p. 195.
- ↑ The cloth with relics used by Nestorians as a portable altar, as it is by the Orthodox and all Eastern Churches (Orth. Eastern Church, p. 409).
- ↑ Silbernagl: ib. 262.
- ↑ He receives £100 a year from the Anglicans.
- ↑ Maclean and Browne: op. cit. 185; see also the longer title, ib.
- ↑ Silbernagl: p. 261.
- ↑ See Échos d'Orient, vii. (1904), pp. 290–292. Mâr Abraham became a Uniate.
- ↑ "Mercy of Jesus."
- ↑ Shamsdin in Turkey and two plains in Persia.
- ↑ Two lists of bishops and sees (not agreeing) will be found in Silbernagl: Verfassung u. gegenw. Bestand. p. 267, and in Maclean and Browne: The Catholicos of the East, 195–197. It appears that the custom of a special name for each line of bishops (like Simon for the Patriarchate) is common to most sees.
- ↑ Among the Uniate Chaldees it is severely discouraged (see p. 101).
- ↑ The Nâṭir Kursi of Mâr Ḥnânyeshu‘ is a boy of seventeen, named Joseph (Kurds and Christians, p. 188).
- ↑ For the election, ordination, and rights of bishops see Silbernagl: op. cit. 262–266.
- ↑ See the Jewel or Pearl (margânīthâ) of ‘Ebedyeshu‘ of Nisibis (1298), translated by Badger: The Nestorians and their Rituals, ii. p. 403.
- ↑ Canon of ‘Ebedyeshu‘, II. 11, quoted by Silbernagl: Verfassung, u.s.w., p. 272, n. 6.
- ↑ For Nestorian monks and nuns see Silbernagl: op. cit. 271–273.
- ↑ O. Braun: Das Buck der Synhados, Stuttgart and Vienna, 1900.
- ↑ J. B. Chabot: Synodicon orientale (Notices et Extraits des MSS. de la Bibl. Nat. xxxvii.), Paris, 1902. It is printed from a MS. written at the monastery of Raban Hurmīzd for the Uniate Patriarch Mar ‘Ebedyeshu‘ Ḥayath, and given by him to the Bibliothèque Nationale, where it is No. 332.
- ↑ See p. 330.
- ↑ Commonly called Ebedjesus; an analysis of his Nomocan is given by Assemani: Bibl. Orient. iii. pt. i. pp. 332–351.
- ↑ The Nomocanon or Liber Directionum is published by Angelo Mai in his Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, tom. x., in a Latin version made by Aloysius Assemani. Assemani gives an epitome of it in the Bibliotheca Orientalis, iii. pars. i. pp. 332–351.
- ↑ For other collections of Nestorian canon law see Duval: Littérature syriaque, 171–183; Chabot: Synodicon orientale, 14–15.
- ↑ Brightman: Eastern Liturgies, 270–271; Wigram: The Assyrian Church, 290–293.
- ↑ Their service on the feast of the "Greek Doctors" (the fifth Friday after Epiphany) contains these anathemas: "Woe and woe again to all who say that God died … who say that Mary is the mother of God … who do not confess in Christ two natures, two persons (hypostases), and one parsopa of filiation. Woe and woe again to the wicked Cyril and Severus" (Badger: op. cit. ii. 80). Plainly these people cannot be acquitted of heresy. Mâr Ḥnânyeshu‘ is now prepared to drop the anathemas (Kurds and Christians, p. 189).
- ↑ Mr. Ainsworth tells the story of a crucifix shown to the Patriarch by a Catholic missionary. The Patriarch was filled with horror, cried out: "Oh the infidels! the blasphemers!" and said it could only be the work of Jews, who wished to mock Christ's agony (Travels and Researches in Asia Minor, ii. p. 249).
- ↑ A. d'Avril: La Chaldée chrétienne, p. 14.
- ↑ Badger: op. cit. 132–136.
- ↑ Badger: op. cit. ii. 82–88.
- ↑ Ib. 98–110. No Eastern Church has any trace of Calvinism. If anything, they err in the direction of semi-Pelagianism. See Orth. Eastern Church, pp. 252–253.
- ↑ Making the usual mistake of thinking material fire in Purgatory part of the Roman faith (Badger: op. cit. 130–131). Their attitude seems to be exactly that of the Orthodox (Orth. Eastern Church, 388–390).
- ↑ Badger: ib. 137.
- ↑ Assemani: Bibl. Orient, iii. (1) 356 ; iii. (2), 240.
- ↑ Op. cit. ii. 150.
- ↑ Ib. 155–159.
- ↑ By a former Anglican missionary.
- ↑ Badger: op. cit. ii. 176.
- ↑ So ‘Ebedyeshu‘ of Nisibis in his Jewel, part iii. chap. 4 (Badger: op. cit. ii. 399–400)—at least by implication.
- ↑ Ib. ii. 79. Dr. Neale is very angry with this and will not admit it (p. 425, n. 25). Badger is an old-fashioned Anglican who takes the Thirty-nine Articles seriously; so Neale falls foul of him each time, whether he says "the sacramental character of Penance is denied by the Church of England" (ii. 154), or whether he stands up for the Filioque because of Article V.
- ↑ Jewel, iii. 4–5 (ib. pp. 399–401).
- ↑ For Anglicans certainly accept Ephesus. As for Anglican orders, presumably Nestorians know nothing at all about them, except what they are told by Anglicans themselves.
- ↑ See p. 130, n. 6.
- ↑ See Probst: Liturgie des 4ten Jahrhunderts (Munster, 1893), pp. 308–318.
- ↑ Bishop of Batnan (Duval: Littérature syriaque, 352–356).
- ↑ Also an ardent Jacobite. His name in Syriac is Aḳsnâyâ (Xenaias, see Duval: ib. 356–358). Hierapolis is Syriac Mabug, Arabic Manbiǵ, on the Euphrates.
- ↑ A list of later writers from whom information about this rite may be gathered will be found in Brightman: Eastern Liturgies, pp. lxxx–lxxxi.
- ↑ Liturgies develop by modification as do languages. They too have dialects and groups of related forms. See Fortescue: The Mass (Longmans, 1912), chaps. i.–ii.
- ↑ Just before the anaphora. The Antiochene place is after the Consecration.
- ↑ In any case before the development of Antioch-Jerusalem represented by St. James's liturgy (The Mass, pp. 80–84).
- ↑ So Baumstark: Die Messe im Morgenland (Kempten and Munich, 1906), 48–52. Renaudot thinks that the reason why Nestorians did not keep the Antiochene rite is that their sect was not formed of native Syrians so much as of fugitives from all parts of the empire, who gathered at Edessa and then in Persia (Lit. Orient. Coll. ii. pp. ii–iii).
- ↑ Brightman calls it "the Persian rite" (Eastern Liturgies, 245–305).
- ↑ The Uniate Chaldees, of course, have the same rite (corrected) as the Nestorians.
- ↑ As in all Eastern rites, the liturgical day begins with its first vespers.
- ↑ A piece of wood struck with a hammer; now being supplanted by bells copied from Russia (Maclean and Browne: The Catholicos of the East, p. 213).
- ↑ For the composition of these services see below, p. 149.
- ↑ Ṭaksâ is a general name for the order of any service, as we say Ritus. So there is the Ṭaksâ of baptism (ritus baptismi), and so on.
- ↑ Syâm īdâ, imposition of hands.
- ↑ So the Chaldæan (Uniate) book is: Ṭaksâ drâzâ ‘am neḳpayâthâ (the Book of the Mystery with continuations).
- ↑ Γάζα; Persian: Ganǵ.
- ↑ Arabic: ward.
- ↑ For Nestorian service-books see Badger: The Nestorians and their Rituals, ii. 16–25; and Maclean and Browne: The Catholicos of the East, 229–233.
- ↑ Maclean and Browne: op. cit. p. 232.
- ↑ But apparently incompletely, inasmuch as the Anglicans leave out the names of heretics (Nestorius, etc.) and obviously heretical matter. Rather a feeble compromise, if one is going to print the service-books of a heretical sect at all. The Nestorians, I am told, who buy and use these books, supply in manuscript or from memory what the Anglicans have omitted.
- ↑ I do not know how far this has been modified by the new Constitution. But for some time back it was possible to evade the law by bribery, and to obtain a firman for building a new church. A great number of Christian churches of all sects were built all over the Turkish Empire in the 19th century.
- ↑ Ḳdush ḳudshe, "Holy of holies."
- ↑ See plan of the Patriarchal church (Mâr Shalīṭâ) at Ḳudshanis above. Plans of other churches in Maclean and Browne: op. cit. pp. 296, 301. The inside of a large church at Mosul in Badger: op. cit. ii. pp. 20–21.
- ↑ Maclean and Browne, pp. 97, 204.
- ↑ This is the theory in the case of the subdeacon and all lesser clerks, as the Byzantine lesser clerks were the epitrachelion. But, as a matter oi fact, no subdeacon is now ordained (see p. 157).
- ↑ J. Braun: Die liturgische Gewandung im Occident u. Orient (Freiburg i. Br., 1907), p. 666.
- ↑ No Eastern Church has. Sequence of colour is a late and purely Western feature. For Nestorian vestments in general see Assemani: Bibl. Or. iii. pt. ii. pp. 682–683; J. Braun: op. cit. under each heading; Maclean: East Syrian.
- ↑ Namely, of the Seleucids.
- ↑ The Kalendars usually begin with the month of Tishrīn 1 (October), and popular calculation often counts the Epiphany as the beginning of a new year (cf. Maclean and Browne: op. cit. p. 328).
- ↑ Nilles: Kalendarium manuale, ii. 681. Maclean and Browne (p. 350) count four Sundays of Moses. Their number, and the number of those after Epiphany, must depend on whether Easter falls early or late.
- ↑ Sometimes they begin this fast on the Sunday (our Quinquagesima), making it last fifty days.
- ↑ Like the Byzantine Fast of the Holy Mother of God; only, with the Nestorians it is, of course, not "of the Mother of God."
- ↑ The whole Nestorian Calendar is given by Nilles: Kalendarium manuale, ii. 684–688. See also Maclean and Browne: op. cit. 346–352.
- ↑ Chap x., The Daily Services, pp. 212–242.
- ↑ Ib. 219. This prayer is attributed to Simon Bar Ṣabbâ'e (see p. 41). The Syriac text, with the notes to which they sing it (but made chromatic), will be found in the Revue de l'Orient chrétien for 1898, p. 231.
- ↑ Ib. 243–244. The usual Syrian name for the rite of the Holy Eucharist (corresponding to our word "Mass") is Ḳurbânâ (Ar. Ḳurbān, "oblation"), also Ḳudâshâ (Ar. Ḳuddāsh, "holy thing"). Laḥmâ dḳudâshâ ("Bread of holiness") is the Blessed Sacrament.
- ↑ Called malkâ (king).
- ↑ The Byzantine προσκομιδή. It is really the offertory act, which takes place at the beginning of the whole service.
- ↑ They wear the tunic, girdle, and their respective forms of stole (p. 147). The celebrant puts on the ma‘prâ at the beginning of the liturgy of the faithful (p. 153).
- ↑ Their Eucharistic bread is, of course, leavened.
- ↑ This is another principle, to mix some of the bread from the last liturgy with that now being prepared. This is meant to emphasize the unity of the sacrifice, like the old Latin sancta and fermentum (Fortescue: The Mass, pp. 174–175, 366–370).
- ↑ For these see Brightman: Eastern Liturgies, pp. 247–252.
- ↑ See Brightman: op. cit. p. lxxx.
- ↑ Not the twelve apostles, but Addai and Mari.
- ↑ Renaudot gives all three: Liturgiarum orient. collectio (ed. ii., Frankfurt, 1847), ii. 578–632. Badger translates the Liturgy of Nestorius (The Nestorians and their Rites, ii. chap. xlii. pp. 215–243); Brightman gives that of the Apostles (Eastern Liturgies, 247–305); Maclean and Browne describe the same rite (op. cit. 247–265).
- ↑ A. Baumstark: Die Chrysostomosliturgie u. die syrische Liturgie des Nestorios, in Chrysostomika (Rome, 1908). pp. 771–857.
- ↑ Ἐνάρξις, the opening of all Eastern rites. The Nestorian enarxis is modelled on the beginning of their evening prayer (Ramshâ).
- ↑ In practice these are very often omitted.
- ↑ Called ḳaruzuthâ (κηούσσειν).
- ↑ Merely a form now, of course.
- ↑ The Nicene Creed with verbal variants and, of course, without the Filioque clause.
- ↑ It is chiefly from here to the Communion that the other two liturgies have different prayers.
- ↑ Namely, if the people once offered the bread and wine, it would seem natural to pray for them at that moment. The Intercession came at the offertory in the old Gallican rite. Dom Cagin and his school think that originally it did so at Rome too (Fortescue: The Mass, pp. 103, 144).
- ↑ No actual diptychs (with names to be filled in at discretion) appear to be now used.
- ↑ This is the regular Antiochene beginning of the anaphora. VIII Apost. Const. xii. 4, etc.
- ↑ The Ghântâ ("inclination") is a prayer said in a low voice (μυστικῶς). The ending chanted aloud (ἐκφώνησις) is called ḳânunâ.
- ↑ Anglican edition of the liturgies, p. 16; Brightman: Eastern Liturgies, p. 285. They take the form of 1 Cor. xi. 23–25.
- ↑ Connolly: Liturgical Homilies of Narsai (Cambridge, 1909), p. 17; cf. pp. 83–84.
- ↑ Maclean and Browne: op. cit. p. 257. The question of validity without the words of institution is a dogmatic one into which I need hardly enter here. Most Catholic and most Orthodox theologians would undoubtedly deny it. On the other hand, if one accepts the idea of consecration by the whole baraḥah (see The Mass, p. 405), valid consecration without the words of institution explicitly might perhaps be defended. One point about the Anglican mission may be noted here. They have (quite rightly) "tampered" with the historic rite in this point, which they think essential, as they have also by leaving out heretical names and clauses. They can hardly, then, blame Rome for having done the same in the Uniate rites, in cases which we consider essential.
- ↑ The other two rites have an Epiklesis of the usual Antiochene or Byzantine form. They are quoted in Maclean and Browne: op. cit. p. 258.
- ↑ "The discreet priest," or "the deacon of God," or "the circumspect believer."
- ↑ Maclean and Browne: op. cit. 261. This is clearly a dislocation caused by the fact that the order of the liturgy contains no clear direction that they should communicate first. So their communion has coalesced with the consumption of what remains of the Sanctissimum at the end.
- ↑ The prayers and exact rubrics will be found in Brightman: Eastern Liturgies, 247–305. From the end of the Epiklesis the other two rites take (with a few special prayers) the Ordo communis of the normal liturgy.
- ↑ Often the mkafrânâ is not given at all. Maclean and Browne, p. 260.
- ↑ Ib. 251.
- ↑ It appears that once oil was used for Confirmation, as everywhere else in Christendom. See G. Bickell: Das Sakr. der Firmung bei den Nest. (Zt. f. Kath. Theol. 1877, 85–117); Bib. Or. iii. (i), 576. Further details of the Baptism service are given by Maclean and Browne: op. cit. 267–279; the whole rite by Badger: op. cit. ii. 195–214; also by G. Diettrich: Die nestorianische Taufliturgie (Giessen, 1903), who ascribes its composition to the Katholikos Yeshu‘-yab III (652–661), holds it to be the oldest extant form in Christendom, and illustrates it with interesting notes. Denzinger: Ritus Orientalium (Würzburg, 1863), i. 364–383.
- ↑ Badger gives the forms (with imposition of the bishop's right hand) for readers and subdeacons; ii. 322–325.
- ↑ Badger, ii. 322–350, gives the services. Denzinger: op. cit. ii. 226–274.
- ↑ Maclean and Browne: op. cit. 142–159; Badger gives the rite, ii. 244–281.
- ↑ The table in Badger, ii. 277.
- ↑ Maclean and Browne, p. 158.
- ↑ For funeral rites see Badger, ii. 282–321; Maclean and Browne, 279–289; Kurds and Christians, 227–232.
- ↑ Now Bishop of Moray, Ross and Caithness.
- ↑ The Catholicos of the East and his People, London, S.P.C.K., 1892.