In the Assyrian Church quarrels soon broke out once more. It would seem really not to have been in Bar-soma's power to be long at peace with anybody, and by the year 491 he was again at open war with Acacius.[1] We do not know the cause of quarrel; but as open anathemas were exchanged, it was obviously pushed further than any previous disagreement of theirs. On this occasion there was no reconciliation, though (when both were dead) some attempt was made to "whitewash" both parties by the next patriarch. Bar-soma had yet another quarrel on his hands at the time with Narses, head of the Nisibis college. Bar-Hebræus declares it to have been over a woman; but Bar-soma must at the time have been over seventy, and Narses cannot have been much less.
It was probably during this final quarrel (though the date is uncertain) that Acacius was sent by the Shah-in-Shah on an embassy to Constantinople.[2] Here he was catechized, of course, by the bishops of the empire concerning his faith. Having heard his statement they demanded that, as further proof of orthodoxy, he should anathematize Bar-soma. Acacius made no difficulty in doing that; and in fact the man was, in all probability, already as much under anathema as his patriarch could make him, though for acts which neither the bishops of the time, nor we moderns, would regard as his greatest sins! On the doctrinal point Acacius
- ↑ Syn. Or., Council of Babai, 63, 312.
- ↑ B.-H., 76. In that case, he either did not go on the embassy referred to in the second letter of Bar-soma, or he went twice. Both explanations are possible. It is possible, too, that Acacius did not anathematize Bar-soma till the "West" insisted on it as a condition of Communion. In that case, one must feel some sympathy with Bar-soma in his retaliation, and admit that in this case he was not the aggressor. To us, what we have written above appears more probable.
