put before the nearest Western bishops of eminence. The answer, whoever gave it, was definite enough, at least as quoted in a council held a century later. All the proceedings against Papa were annulled, the accusers were deposed from their orders, and only such members of the council as had acted in "their simplicity" were allowed to retain their rank. Shimun, as having been consecrated against his will, was to remain as archdeacon, "cum jure successionis."
According to another historian, however, the judgment of the Western fathers was not nearly so trenchant, and simply recommended a general reconciliation, on the ground that submission to a patriarch was for the common advantage.[1] Certainly the decision, even if given as quoted, was not carried out. The only protagonists in the dispute of whom we know anything were not degraded. Miles and Aqib-Alaha retained their rank; and the only reason why the former did not resume his see was that he preferred the work of wandering evangelist to that of diocesan bishop. Shimun was specially marked for promotion as a result of what he had done. The most probable explanation is, that all parties were a little ashamed of themselves and their actions, and were glad of a reconciliation on any, and preferably on indefinite, terms. It is with some regret that we find that the one man who resisted the reconciliation was Shimun. He refused to accept the advice of the
- ↑ M.-Z., Life of Shri'a. I incline to think that this more nearly represents what happened. With M. Labourt, I hold that the acts of the Council of Dad-Ishu ought not to be trusted too absolutely, in that they have gone through a process of doctoring themselves; and in any case, the historical statements about Papa are the reported speech of a member of the council only, not its formal declaration.
Papa with these bishops is apocryphal. See Labourt, p. 83, note 2.
