The Lesser Eastern Churches/Chapter 4

by Adrian Henry Timothy Knottesford Fortescue

 

CHAPTER IV

 

THE NESTORIAN CHURCH IN THE PAST

 

The branch which does not remain in the vine shall wither. This did not happen at once to the Nestorian Church. On the contrary, for a time it still flourished conspicuously. It was a great factor of civilization in Persia under the Moslem, and it sent out most wonderful missions all over Asia. Yet the cause of withering was there all the time, and gradually it began to produce its effect. This Church was now cut off from communion, from almost any intercourse, with the West, where Christianity was the leading power. Isolated, surrounded by an alien faith and an alien civilization, it sank gradually till it became a poor little group of families in Kurdistan, harassed and persecuted by all its neighbours. It will be clearest to take the various points of its history separately.

 

1. General History

Here we trace in outline the external development of the Nestorian Church down to our own time.

We left Mârabâ Katholikos and Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (540–552; p. 83). The local title (Seleucia-Ctesiphon) now becomes less important, is gradually almost forgotten. The primates changed their seat constantly. Meanwhile the office of Katholikos (now always assumed to be a Patriarchate, like those of Antioch, Alexandria, etc.) had become a thing apart. The Katholikos, wherever he might be, was simply the head of the Nestorian Church. We shall see his titles below (p. 131). Meanwhile we may call him simply the Nestorian Patriarch. Maraba was a zealous reformer (p. 83). After him follows a line of Patriarchs of whom there is nothing particular to say. Each held a synod at his election or nomination, according to what had become the invariable custom; and there was the usual series of quarrels, rivalries and depositions, either successful or not.^[1]

From the 6th century the official Nestorian Church was troubled by the presence of heretical bodies. First among these we must count the Jacobites (Syrian Monophysites). The opposite heresy was much stronger in West Syria, as we shall see in Chapter X. Then, when it became an organized sect, it pushed towards the East and entered Persia. The Persia Government troubled not at all about these quarrels among Christians. We may reserve the account of Jacobitism in Persia till we come to that sect (p. 329). Here it is enough to say that the Jacobites eventually set up a smaller rival hierarchy in Persia and remained a permanent opposition to the Nestorians. There were other rivals too.

The Masalians are a sect who appear in the East from the 6th to about the 12th century. Their name means "people who pray," "orantes";^[2] so in Greek they are εὐχόμενοι, εὐχῖται. Epiphanius († 403) already mentions a sect of Masalians,^[3] who may be the same people. According to him they came to Syria from Mesopotamia. Their heresy consisted in denying baptism and all sacraments, admitting only prayer as the means of obtaining grace, rejecting any kind of hierarchy, claiming to be themselves wholly spiritual and perfect. They are clearly one form of the widespread Paulician sect. These people gave trouble to the Nestorians, as to all Eastern Churches. They were strong in Adiabene, and especially in the Shiggar mountains between the Tigris and the Euphrates, south of Nisibis. So there are canons in Persia made against the "false Masalians"; sometimes these people were converted. The Henanians are more difficult to understand. They are supposed to have been founded by one Ḥnânâ of Adiabene, head of the School of Nisibis in the early 6th century. They became a considerable party, especially at Nisibis. Many Nestorian writers inveigh against the Henanians. Their chief opponent was Babai the Great (p. 83); canons were drawn up against them.^[4] According to Babai they were Origenists, Fatalists, Pantheists. But a significant point is that, among their other crimes, they accepted the Council of Chalcedon and the teaching of St. John Chrysostom rather than that of Theodore of Mopsuestia. So a doubt occurs: were these Henanians really anything but Catholics among the Nestorians?

King Chosroes^[5] II (590–628) made war on Rome, captured Jerusalem, and took away the Holy Cross. He appointed Sbaryeshu‘ I Patriarch (596–604). Sbaryeshu‘^[6] was a monk who enjoyed a great reputation for piety. As Patriarch he ruled firmly and well, took steps to put down heresies, and spread the faith among idolaters in outlying parts of the kingdom. He was, of course, not allowed to make any propaganda against the State religion. In 603 he was made to accompany the Persian army and pray for its success. But this was less distressing to him than it would have been to his early predecessors, since, as a Nestorian, he looked upon the Romans as heretics.^[7] Chosroes II began a fitful persecution of Christians, the last they had to suffer from the old Persian monarchy; there were some martyrs at this time. Sbaryeshu‘ I was succeeded by Gregory (605–609). Then, because of the persecution, there was a long vacancy (609–628). At Chosroes' death peace was restored to the Church. Heraclius (610–641) won victories which frightened the Persian Government. Yeshu‘yab II became Patriarch (628–643), and was sent as ambassador to Heraclius in 630. Arrived at the Emperor's court he made a Catholic profession of faith and was admitted to Communion. On his return to Persia he was violently attacked for this, and for a time his name was struck from the Nestorian diptychs.^[8] But this was only a passing phase. He had condemned Chalcedon in his profession of faith already.^[9]

Yeshu‘yab II saw the great change which now came over the country. The Sassanid monarchy of Persia was at its last gasp. In 632 Yazdagird III began his unhappy reign. In 634 the Moslems under Ḫalīd first invaded Persia. In 635 they won the battle of Kadesia and took Seleucia-Ctesiphon. In 642 they won their "Victory of Victories" at Nehāwand. Yazdagird fled, and was murdered in 651. The old Mazdæan State came to an end, and now the Moslem ruled all Persia. The Mazdæans, so long oppressors of Christians, were now themselves oppressed. They, too, like the Christians, became a rayah under the Khalif. Vast numbers turned Moslem; so that the old Persian religion is now represented only by a few so-called gebers^[10] in Persia, and by the Parsi exiles in India.

The Christians had no reason for loyalty to the Sassanid Government. On the contrary, the Moslem invaders were much nearer to them in religion, had on the whole a higher civilization, and offered, at any rate then, better terms to Christians under their rule. So we hear that Yeshu‘yab and his Nestorians rather welcomed the invaders, and took steps to secure their protection and tolerance. So did the Jacobites in Persia (already a considerable community).^[11]

Now the Moslem conquest, although the great turning-point in the political history of Persia, did not really make any vital difference to the Persian Church. To the Christians it only meant a change of masters. They had never known what it is to have a Christian Government. "Since twelve centuries the Aramaic races had been accustomed to submit to the rule of the strongest. The Achemenids, Seleucids, Parthians and Sassanids, one after another, had exploited and oppressed them without mercy. The Arabs continued the same tradition. To slaves it matters little whether they obey this or that master."^[12]

The Nestorians then became a rayah,^[13] "people of protection,"^[14] on the usual terms of Christians in the Khalifs domain.^[15] About the year 750 Bagdad was built near Seleucia-Ctesiphon. The Abbasid Khalifs reigned there till 1258. During this time the Christians (naṣāra), of whom we hear in their neighbourhood, were, of course, mostly Nestorians. They did not at once sink to the pitiable state in which they are now. They still had enormous missions (see p. 108), and they were, during all the Abbasid period, a very important factor in civilization in the East.

Various legends grew up later, or were made deliberately to persuade the Moslem conqueror to look with special favour on the Nestorians among the subject communities of Christians, Jews and Mazdæans. So it was said that Mohammed himself had been in friendly relations with a Nestorian monk named Sergius, from whom he had learned about the Christian system.^[16] Yeshu‘yab II was said to have gone to see Mohammed, and to have obtained from him a document granting privileges to Nestorians.^[17] Omar is said to have confirmed this, ‘Ali to have given another letter of protection to Nestorians because they supplied his army with food at the siege of Mosul, and other Khalifs later to have treated this sect with special toleration.^[18] So a Bishop of Adiabene, writing just after the Moslem invasion (650–660), says that the new masters are by no means so bad as they are thought to be, that they are not far removed from Christianity, honour its clergy and protect its Churches.^[19] We conceive the Nestorians, then, as subject to the usual conditions of ḏimmis; they might restore their churches, but not build new ones, they were not allowed to bear arms nor to ride a horse, save in case of necessity, and they must even then dismount on meeting a Moslem; they had to pay the usual poll-tax. Yet they were favoured rather more than other ḏimmis. For one thing, when the Khalif reigned at Bagdad (750–1258) the Nestorians were the most powerful non-Moslem community at hand. Moreover, they were very useful. They had a higher tradition of civilization than their masters. Nestorians were used at court as physicians, scribes, secretaries, as Copts were in Egypt under the Fatimids (p. 227). This body of Nestorian officials at court got much influence, and eventually had a great voice in canonical matters, elected Patriarchs, and so on. They formed a kind of guild or corporate society,the "learned men" who had the Khalif's ear. Indeed, the line of Arab scholarship which came to Spain, and was a great factor in mediæval learning, begins in great part with the Nestorians at Bagdad. The Nestorians had inherited Greek culture in Syriac translations. Now they handed it on to their Arab masters. So we find Khalifs treating the Nestorians as the chief of Christian communities. At one time (in the 13th century), the diploma given by the Khalif to the newly appointed Nestorian Patriarch^[20] says: "The Sublime Authority empowers thee to be installed at Bagdad as Katholikos of the Nestorians, as also for the other Christians in Moslem lands, as representative in these lands of the Rūm (sc. Orthodox), Jacobites, Melkites."^[21] This means, at any rate sometimes, civil authority over all Christians given to the Nestorian Patriarch.^[22]

As usual, under Moslem rule, this tolerance, even favour, was liable to be broken by intervals of sharp persecution. At any time a fanatical Khalif could start harrying his non-Moslem subjects as much as he liked. The Khalif Al-Mahdi (Mohammed Abū-‘abdullah, 775–785) made a short but frightful persecution, as a result of his war against the empire. Christian women received a thousand lashes with thongs of bull's hide to make them apostatize; yet they remained faithful. Hārūn Ar-rashīd (Abū-ǵa‘far 786–809) also persecuted for a time. He ordered all churches to be destroyed, and Christians to wear a special dress; from which Kremer concludes that already they had begun to speak Arabic, and to be otherwise not distinguishable from their Moslem neighbours.^[23]

A picture of the state of the Nestorians soon after the Moslem conquest of Persia is given by the life of their Patriarch Timothy I (779–823), related by M. J. Labourt.^[24]

Timothy was born about 728 in Adiabene, still the chief stronghold of Christianity in those parts. His uncle, George, was Bishop of Beth Bagash on the Zab. The boy was sent to a famous monastery, Beth ‘Abe, to be educated; here an old monk prophesied to him: "Keep thyself from all uncleanness; for thou shalt be Patriarch of all Eastern lands, and the Lord will make thee famous, as no one has been before thee nor shall be after thee." Timothy succeeded his uncle as Bishop of Beth Bagash. In 779 the Patriarch Ḥnânyeshu‘^[25] II (774–779) died, and Timothy began intriguing to succeed him. He offered the electors a bag which he said was full of gold, if they would choose him. They did, and then he gave them the bag, which was found to contain only stones. The story does credit to the simple faith of the Nestorians in their bishops.^[26] Timothy was thus made Patriarch in 780. But a number of bishops opposed him on sound canonical grounds,^[27] set up a rival, Ephrem of Gandīsābur, and he had much trouble before he crushed them. He had no mercy on Ephrem. Then Timothy set about his duties as Patriarch. He opposed the Jacobites, already a powerful community, the Catholics (who had a bishop at Bagdad), the Masalians and Henanians (p. 89). He wrote to the Maronites, then Monotheletes, and invited them to accept his own faith. This faith is, of course, Nestorianism in the mild form in which his sect held it. He repeats to the Maronites the regular formula, "two natural hypostases in one prosopon of the Son"; they are to accept Nestorius, Theodore, Diodore, and to renounce "that heretic Cyril." He agrees to their Monotheletism.^[28] He settled questions of canon law and discipline, and advanced still further the power of the Katholikos over his suffragans. It is sometimes said that it was this Timothy who stopped the scandalous practice of bishops and monks with wives, and brought the discipline of the Nestorian Church to its present state (p. 134).^[29] He was a person of much culture and zeal for scholarship. He was well versed in the Bible, theology and philosophy. He read Aristotle in a Syriac version, and caused other of his works to be translated in Syriac or Arabic.^[30] Labourt gives a very respectable list of Greek and Latin Fathers quoted by Timothy from Syriac translations.^[31] He was zealous about schools. He writes to a monk who became a bishop: "Take care of the schools with all your heart. Remember that the school is the mother and nurse of sons of the Church." And again: "Watch over scholars as the apple of your eye."^[32] Our Timothy was on friendly terms with the Khalifs Al-Mahdi and Hārūn Ar-rashīd. He is said to have settled an unpleasant question of divorce to the great advantage of Hārūn's wife Zubaidah. He advised her to turn Christian, be baptized, and so deserve death, then to go back to Islam; in this way Hārūn could retake her without further trouble.^[33] Strange advice for a Christian bishop to give, but it brought him great favour with the lady. He ruled over a mighty Church with suffragans all over Asia, as we shall see in the next paragraph about Nestorian missions (pp. 103–110). So lived the virtuous Lord, Mâr Timothy the first, Katholikos of the East, and he died full of years on May 7 in the year 823.

The Patriarch changed his place of residence constantly. The idea that he was bishop of the twin cities, Seleucia and Ctesiphon, has almost disappeared. The Patriarchate had become an office of itself, independent of any see. Already before Timothy I, Ḥnânyeshu‘ II had moved to the new capital, Bagdad. Timothy resided there, as did most Patriarchs, till the Mongols came in 1258, and for some time after that.

In the early 11th century Albiruni, a Moslem writer from Khiva,^[34] mentions the Nestorians as the most civilized of the Christian communities under the Khalif. He says that there are three sects of Christians, Melkites, Nestorians and Jacobites. "The most numerous of them are the Melkites and Nestorians; because Greece and the adjacent countries are all inhabited by Melkites, whilst the majority of the inhabitants of Syria, ‘Irāk and Mesopotamia and Khurāsān are Nestorians. The Jacobites mostly live in Egypt and around it." The Nestorian Katholikos "is appointed by the Khalif on the presentation of the Nestorian community." But he will not allow that the Katholikos is a Patriarch. He says Christians have only four Patriarchs, of Constantinople, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. He forgets Jerusalem.^[35] About a century later the Nestorians are mentioned by another Moslem philosopher, Shahrastāni.^[36] In his Book of Religions and Sects^[37] he gives a not very accurate account of Nestorian theology. Christians, he says, are divided into three bodies: Melkites (who follow Malka!), Nestorians and Jacobites. Nestorians believe that the Word was joined to the body of Jesus, "like the shining of the sun through a window or on crystal, or like the figure impressed on a seal." According to them, the Messiah "is God and man in one, but each is an essence, a person and a nature." He says the Nestorians are Monotheletes, and gives a very strange account of their Trinitarian idea. He knows the Masalians as a sect of Nestorians.^[38]

In the 13th century came the great invasion of the Mongols under Jengiz Khan (1206–1227). They swept over China, Transoxiana, Persia. Jengiz's grandson Hulagu Khan stormed and sacked Bagdad in 1258, and put to death the last Abbasid Khalif, Almusta‘ẓim billāh (‘Abdullāh Abū-aḥmad, 1242–1258).^[39] This meant again a change of masters for the Nestorians. But it was not a painful one. The Mongols turned Moslem, and were at least as tolerant as the Arabs had been. The Crusades did not much affect the Nestorians in their ancient home; though from this time begin their occasional relations and correspondence with Popes, to which we shall return when we come to the Uniate Chaldees.

For about a century the Nestorians lived, not altogether unhappily, under the successors of Jengiz Khan. It was during this time (the 13th century) that their Church reached its largest extent through its wonderful missions (p. 108). We have a picture of their condition at this time in the life of their Patriarch Yaballâhâ III (1281–1317).^[40] He was originally named Mark, and came from one of the remote missions in China. He had come to Bagdad to visit the Patriarch Denḥâ I^[41] (1265–1281) on his way to the Holy Land. But Denḥâ would not let him go further. Instead, he ordained him Metropolitan of Kathay and Wang (Northern China). Then Denḥâ died, and Mark succeeded him as Yaballâhâ III. He governed the Nestorian Church during its most brilliant period. Twenty-five Metropolitans, in Persia, Mesopotamia, Khorasan, Turkistan, India and China, obeyed him. He was on friendly terms with the Prince of the Mongols, under whose civil rule he lived. This prince (Argon Khan) thought of sending an embassy to the Emperor, the Pope and the Western princes; naturally, he imagined that a Christian ambassador would be most welcome. So he asked the Nestorian Patriarch to find him a suitable person. Yaballâhâ chose a monk, Rabban Ṣaumâ, who had come from China with him.^[42] The Khan gave him letters for the Emperor, the Pope and others, and sent him off with plenty of money, three horses and a suite.

Rabban Ṣaumâ's embassy in Europe is one of the most curious episodes of later Nestorian history. By this time, the very existence of a Nestorian Church was almost forgotten in the West. Perhaps the most remarkable point in his adventures is the unquestioning confidence with which everyone takes his word that he is a good Christian, as they are. So entirely had suspicion of Nestorians died out, that even the Pope gave him Communion. Rabban Ṣaumâ came to Constantinople, saw what he calls "King Basileus" (evidently taking that for his name), the Holy Wisdom, all the relics and wonders. Then he comes to Italy, lands at Naples, and sees King "Irid Ḥarladu."^[43] At that time Irid Ḥarladu was fighting the King of "Arkun" (Aragon). Honest Ṣaumâ is amazed that in European war only combatants are killed. Not so is war waged in his country. Arrived at Rome, he finds the Pope just dead.^[44] Instead of a Pope he finds twelve great lords, called "Kardīnāle." He says he has come from King Argon and the Katholikos of the East. The Cardinals ask him who founded his Church (clearly they have never heard of it), and he says: "Mâr Thomas, Mâr Addai, Mâr Maris; we have their rite." They ask about his faith, and he quotes to them the creed as used by the Nestorians in the 13th century. It is, roughly, the Nicene Creed; but it has Nestorian clauses. Ṣaumâ says that one of the Trinity "clothed himself in a perfect man"; that our Lord has two natures, two hypostases, one person. Even now the Cardinals do not seem to suspect what he is. But they continue the discussion, and Ṣaumâ incidentally denies the Filioque. The horrors of theological controversy are about to begin, when he says: "I did not come here to argue with you, but to venerate the Lord Pope." As there was at the moment no Lord Pope to venerate, Ṣaumâ goes on to France, and arrives at Paris, where he sees King Philip IV (1285–1314). Then he comes to "Kasonio" (Gascogne), and there finds the King of "Alangitar" (Angleterre), none other than our Edward I (1272–1307). With him, too, the traveller discourses. Edward says he means to fit out a crusade, and boasts (at that time he could) that in all Western Europe, though there be many kingdoms and governments, there is but one religion. This is the furthest point Ṣaumâ reached. To travel from Pekin to Gascony in the 13th century is indeed an astounding feat. On his way back he stops again at Rome, finds Nicholas IV elected (1288–1292), and pays homage to him with exceeding reverence. Nicholas is "the Lord Pope, Katholikos, Partiarch of the Roman lands and of all Western people."^[45] He asks and obtains leave to celebrate his liturgy in Rome. The people say: "The language is different, but the rite is the same." Clearly they were no great scholars in liturgy. On Palm Sunday Ṣaumâ attends the Pope's Mass and receives Holy Communion from him. This is probably the only time in history that a Nestorian has done so. He sees and describes all the Holy Week services in Rome. The Pope gives him relics "because you have come from so far." He had apparently received money from everyone, after the manner of Nestorians who come to Europe. At last he arrives home again, and tells all his adventures to Argon Khan, "who was glad and exulted with joy."^[46]

But the insecurity of the Nestorians under Mongol rule was shown by another adventure of Yaballâhâ III. In 1295 he was seized by a vicious governor, tortured, and only released when he had paid 20,000 dinars to his persecutor.

These years of comparative ease and splendour under the Mongols are the last rays of light in the story of the Nestorians. We come now to a frightful storm and then dark night for many centuries.

The storm is the work of that appalling person the lame Timur. Timur Leng was a rebel Mongol chieftain. In the 14th century he rose against the Prince of the House of Jengiz, and swept with his wild hordes like a hurricane over Asia. He set up his throne at Samarcand, having crushed Turks and Mongols, having devastated Syria, Persia, India and China, and died there in 1405.^[47] Timur finally broke the Nestorian Church. Their missions went to pieces, countless numbers of Nestorians were massacred or apostatized.

Fleeing from total destruction, the Patriarch, with a feeble remnant, took refuge in the Highlands of Kurdistan. So we come to the last act of their story. Since the 14th century, the Nestorians remain a tiny handful of families in Kurdistan and the plain of Mesopotamia. They were almost forgotten by Europe till Western travellers rediscovered them in the 19th century. There is not much to chronicle from this last period.

After the storm of Timur Leng had passed, the modern states of Turkey and Persia appear. The Ottoman Turks had already entered the scene in the 13th century, and Persia became an independent state in the 15th (pp. 27–28). So the Nestorians found themselves on the frontier of these two Moslem countries. That is so still. They live around the frontier, some on one side and some on the other. The Patriarch lived for a long time at Mosul, sometime at Margâ, east of Lake Urmi (in Persia); now he^[48] has lived for about a century at the village Ḳudshanīs, in the mountains on the Turkish side.

About the middle of the 15th century the Patriarchate became hereditary—no doubt gradually. The electors chose the nephew of the last Patriarch, who had been brought up under his care and had learned in his house how to follow his footsteps. Then this became a regular principle. So we come to one of the chief abuses of the modern Nestorians, the existence of a "Patriarchal family." The Patriarch may not marry, so the office passes from uncle to nephew, as we shall see when we come to the present conditions (p. 130). In the year 1551 began a great dispute about the succession, whose results still last. This question also affects the Uniate Chaldees, since out of the quarrel emerged their lines of Patriarchs too. But, as it also affects the Nestorians profoundly, we must tell the story here. Its final result is very curious.

In 1551 Simon (Shim‘un) Bar-Mâmâ, the Patriarch, died. It was in his house (the family of Mâmâ) that the Patriarchate had become hereditary. So a number of bishops duly elect his nephew Simon Denḥâ to succeed him. But others and the Nestorian "notables,"^[49] apparently in order to break the hereditary idea, elect a monk of the Rabban Hurmizd monastery (p. 135) named Sa‘ūd,^[50] whose name in religion was John Sulâḳâ.^[51] Sulâḳâ becomes a very important person; he was the first Uniate Patriarch of a continuous line.^[52] In order to fortify himself against his rival he makes friends with the Catholic Franciscan missionaries, who were already working among the Nestorians. They send him to Jerusalem, and there the "Custos s. sepulchri" gives him letters for the Pope. He comes to Rome, makes a Catholic profession of faith, and is ordained Patriarch by Pope Julius III (1550–1555) on Apr. 9, 1553. Then he went back as a Uniate Patriarch, hoping to gather all Nestorians under his authority. But in 1555 he was imprisoned by the Pasha of Diyārbakr, and murdered in prison by the machinations of his rival. We now have two successions of rival Patriarchs—no uncommon occurrence in this Church. We will take Sulaka's line first. He was succeeded by one ‘Ebedyeshu‘,^[53] who kept the union faithfully, and received the pallium from Pope Pius IV (1559–1565).^[54] He died in 1567. Then came Aitallâhâ, apparently also a Catholic. After Aitallâhâ came Denḥâ Shim‘un, who suffered much during the war between Turkey and Persia, fled to Persia, and died there in 1593. Meanwhile the flock of these Partiarchs became more and more anti-Roman in feeling. The union seems to have been kept up fitfully; that is to say, Patriarchs of this line occasionally sent Catholic professions of faith and protestations of obedience to Rome, receiving in return the pallium; others did not, and the mass of clergy and people were probably but little conscious of the difference thereby made. All Patriarchs of this line of Sulâḳâ took the name Simon (Mâr Shim‘un). In the 17th century, Mâr Shim‘un VII went to reside at Urmi; his successor and Mâr Shim‘un IX both sent Catholic professions to Rome. In 1670 Mâr Shim‘un XII sent the last of these professions. From that time relations with Rome dropped; except that in 1770 one of the Patriarchs wrote to Pope Clement XIV (1769–1774) expressing his desire to restore the union. But by now they and their flocks had quietly dropped back into schism. In the 18th century they moved to Ḳudshanīs, as we have said, apparently in consequence of a Turkish-Persian war. Here the present Mâr Shim‘un, the reigning Nestorian Patriarch, lives. The curious fact is that he does not represent the old Nestorian line from Pâpâ, Dâdyeshu‘ and Mâr Abâ, but the originally Uniate line of Sulâḳâ. So people who inveigh against Uniate secessions from the ancient Eastern Churches should count Mar Shim‘un as merely the head of a schismatical secession from the ancient Persian Church.

Meanwhile the rival line of Bar Mâmâ went on. These Patriarchs all took the name Elias (Eliyâ). Sulâḳâ's rival Shim‘un Denḥâ is said to have made his two illegitimate children bishops at the ages of twelve and fifteen. If this be true, Baron d'Avril seems to have some reason for describing him as "hardly estimable."^[55] His successors also negotiated with Rome. Elias V sent a profession of faith, which, however, Pope Sixtus V ( 1585–1590) rejected as stained with Nestorianism.^[56] In 1607 Elias VI sent a sound profession and was admitted to union; so did Elias VII in 1657. So at this time both the lines of Sulâḳâ and Bar Mâmâ were Uniate; there were two Uniate Patriarchs of the Chaldees, an Elias at Mosul in the plains and a Mâr Shim‘un at Urmi. But the line of Bar Mâmâ fell away too after Elias VII. In the middle of the 18th century a certain Joseph, Metropolitan of Diyārbakr, renounced his allegiance to Elias VIII, because Elias had broken with the Pope. Joseph came to Rome and received a pallium as Uniate Patriarch. This begins a third line, all Uniate, which lasted till 1826 and then disappeared, because the line of Bar Mama had come back to union (p. 129). Since 1830 this line of Bar Mâmâ, really the only one which has direct continuity from the old Persian Katholikoi, is Uniate. So we have the curious situation that the present Nestorian Patriarch represents the originally Uniate succession of Sulâḳâ, and the Uniate Chaldæan Patriarch the old Nestorian line.^[57]

There is nothing now to add about the Nestorians till we come to their present state. A little group of families in Kurdistan and around Lake Urmi, they have been at intervals horribly persecuted by the Kurds, never more than in the 19th century. Then comes their rediscovery by Western travellers and missionaries, which will be described later (pp. 115–126).

 

2. Nestorian Missions

We must note something about what is the most interesting and the most glorious episode in the history of this Church—its missions. During the long period we have been discussing, down to Timur Leng's destruction of everything, the Nestorians had flourishing missions all over Asia. As long as the empire lasted they were prevented from entering its territory, since Zeno drove them out in 489 (p. 78). But they had a force of expansion which would honour any Christian Church. Shut off from the West, they reached out towards the East and carried the name of Christ to India, Turkestan and China.

In the West the Nestorians had tried to push their doctrine. Under the Moslem Khalif the Roman anti-Nestorian laws, of course, had no force; so they sent missionaries to Syria, Palestine, Cyprus. In Cyprus they had churches and a Metropolitan, who has some importance as having come into union at the Council of Florence.^[58] Even in Egypt there were Nestorian congregations, in the very home of Monophysism. Under the Patriarch Mâr Abâ II (742–752) the Nestorians of Egypt had a bishop under the (Nestorian) Metropolitan of Damascus. In Arabia they had still older settlements. Mohammed is often said to have learned what he knew of Christianity from a Nestorian monk (p. 92, n. 4). In the 6th century Nestorian missionaries had founded a great Church along the west coast of India. This is to us their most important mission, because it has had a long history of its own and still exists. It is the Church of Malabar, of which in Chapter XI. Here it shall be enough to note that the Arabian and Indian missions were under the Bishop of Persis (Pâres). In Ceylon, too, there were Nestorians in the 6th century. When Kosmas Indikopleustes travelled in those regions (about 530) he found Christians in Ceylon, India, and a bishop at Kalliana^[59] who was ordained in Persia.^[60] In Khorasan they had flourishing churches. In the 7th century the Katholikos Yeshu‘yab complains to Simon Metropolitan of Yaḳut that he is neglecting the churches of Merv and Khorasan.^[61] The island of Socotra (Dioscorides) had a Nestorian church in the 6th century. Kosmas Indikopleustes speaks of Christians there;^[62] in 880 the Katholikos Enush sent them a bishop, in the 11th century Sbaryeshu‘ III (1057–1072) ordained one bishop for the islands of the Indian see and another for Socotra;^[63] Marco Polo speaks of Christians in Socotra and of "an archbishop who is not in subjection to the Pope of Rome, but to a Patriarch who resides in the city of Baghdad."^[64] Marco Polo, the valiant Venetian traveller of the 13th century, is our witness for many outlying Nestorian missions. Again, a certain Kyriakos (so-called), Bishop of Socotra, was present at the ordination of Yaballâhâ III at Bagdad in 1282.^[65] From Khorasan and India Nestorian missionaries pushed north and east. In the strangest and most inaccessible places Marco Polo found flourishing Nestorian communities. At Samarcand they had a church, of which he tells how its central column was upheld miraculously; he says that a brother of the Grand Khan was a Christian convert.^[66] Near there is the province of Karkan, whose inhabitants are "for the most part Mahometans, with some Nestorian Christians."^[67] At Kashkar the Nestorians have their own churches.^[68] So Christianity spread into Tartary and Turkestan, at Balkh and Herat. In all these places in the 12th and 13th centuries we hear of Nestorian bishops who obeyed the Patriarch at Bagdad. A specially curious case is that of the land of Tenduch or Tenduk, just south of Lake Baikal. Its capital was the city Karakorum. Since the 11th century there was so flourishing a Nestorian Church here that the country and the Government were Christian. The prince was named Owang or Unk Khan. He was a Christian. The name seems to have been a hereditary one, passing from one sovereign to another. Owang is not unlike Ioannes. So through the Middle Ages in Europe grew up a wonderful legend of that distant Christian prince. By a natural exaggeration they made this head of a Christian community into an ecclesiastical person. He is the famous Prester John, King and Priest. Marco Polo has much to say of him.^[69] The Crusaders in their most hopeless moments always hoped that suddenly from the East Prester John would come, leading an army to help them. A certain Bishop of Gabula was said to have written to Pope Eugene III (1145–1153) about this John, "rex et sacerdos," who, with his people, was a Christian, though a Nestorian.^[70] Alexander III (1159–1181) sent messages to "Indorum regi, sacerdotum sanctissimo."^[71] John of Monte Corvino, the first Catholic bishop in China, in 1305, writes about Prester John.^[72] Then the legend shifts its ground and this strange figure becomes a King of Abyssinia. The legend has a long story.^[73] Its first source seems to be clearly the Nestorian Khan of Tenduch. One can understand how the mediæval imagination was fired by that dream of a mighty king and pontiff, reigning over a great Christian nation out in the unknown wilds of Central Asia, who some day would appear in the East, leading an army under the standard of the cross to save the Crusaders' kingdom.

Then, from Khorasan, Turkestan and India the Gospel was brought to the great land of China. It is strange, when we read of the first Catholic mission to China, to realize that many centuries earlier Nestorian missionaries had been there, that there had been native Nestorian Christians and a Nestorian hierarchy. We do not know how early the missionaries came; but already in the early 8th century the Patriarch Slībâzkâ^[74] I (714–726) ordained a Metropolitan for China.^[75] This Chinese Nestorian Church, too, lasted till Timur's devastation. We have seen that Yaballaha III came from China (p. 97). Chinese Nestorianism has left monuments. The most astonishing of these is the tablet of Si-ngan-fu. Si-ngan-fu is in Middle China, in the province of Shen-si. Here, in 1625, Jesuit missionaries found a stone with a long inscription in Chinese and Syriac. At first Protestants said they had forged it themselves; now no one doubts its authenticity. For one thing, if the Jesuits had forged it they would have done it better. The Chinese part is apparently very difficult to translate. But there is no doubt that it is a monument put up by Nestorians in honour of their religion. It is dated (in our reckoning) 781. It is long and involved, as Chinese inscriptions are. It has as title: "Tablet eulogizing the propagation of the illustrious religion in China, with a preface composed by King-tsing, priest of the Syrian Church." Then it begins: "Behold the unchangeably true and invisible, who existed through all eternity without origin," etc. "This is our eternal true Lord God, threefold and mysterious in substance. He appointed the cross as the means for determining the four cardinal points," etc. Lower down: "Thereupon, our Trinity being divided in nature,^[76] the illustrious and honourable Messiah, veiling his true dignity, appeared in the world as a man." "A virgin gave birth to the Holy One in Syria." An account of Christianity, of the Bible, of Christian morals follows. Then: "It is difficult to find a name to express the excellence of the true and unchangeable doctrine; but as its meritorious operations are manifestly displayed, by accommodation it is named the Illustrious Religion." "In the time of the accomplished Emperor Taitsung, the illustrious and magnificent founder of the dynasty, among the enlightened and holy men who arrived was the most virtuous Olopun^[77] from the country of Syria. Observing the azure clouds, he bore the true sacred books; beholding the direction of the winds, he braved difficulties and dangers." This Olopun is said to have arrived in the year 635; which would give us a date for the first missionary in this part of China. The inscription goes on at great length, praising the Chinese king and describing a most flourishing and widespread Christianity under his rule. And this in 781! Finally: "This was erected in the second year of Kien-chung of the Tang dynasty, on the seventh day of the first month, being Sunday." That is our year 781. In Syriac are names of missionaries and founders of the monument. For instance: "Adam, deacon, Vicar episcopal and Pope of China. In the time of the Father of Fathers, the Lord John Joshua, the Universal Patriarch."^[78] This monument also gives wonderful matter for the imagination. Discovered by accident nearly a thousand years later, it brought across that silent chasm its witness of a forgotten Church, lost centuries before in the storms that swept over Asia. Now, looking back through the mist, we have a glimpse of Olopun observing the azure clouds and bringing the true sacred books to the accomplished Emperor Taitsung, bringing the Illustrious Religion to China, thirteen centuries ago.

This outline of their missions will shew that the Nestorians before Timur Leng were a vast and mighty Church. In the 13th century twenty-five Metropolitans obeyed the Nestorian Patriarch.^[79] Allowing an average of eight to ten sees for each province, this represents a hierarchy of two hundred to two hundred and fifty bishops. There is, perhaps, some excuse for what is, of course, really a gross exaggeration of Neale, that "it may be doubted whether Innocent III possessed more spiritual power than the Patriarch in the city of the Caliphs."^[80]

All these missions have been swept away long ago. In Cyprus the Nestorians became Uniates. In Socotra they were Uniates for a time under the Portuguese;^[81] then the Arabs wiped out Christianity from the island. But it was chiefly the tempest aroused by Timur Leng which overturned the Nestorian mission churches. After his time no Christians were left in Central Asia, the churches were destroyed, the lines of bishops came to an end. The whole Nestorian body was reduced to a frightened remnant hiding in the wilds of Kurdistan (p. 100). Only one mission at Malabar survived (pp. 353–358); and here and there a broken stone bearing a cross and Syriac letters is found, to bear witness that once Christ was worshipped in Tatary and China.

There is another curious relic of Nestorianism in Asia, which we may just notice. Everyone has heard how strangely Christian or Catholic in external details is the Lamaism of Tibet. We know that Lamaist monks have a hierarchy and many rites like ours. People have tried to make anti-Christian capital out of this. Since Lamaism is Buddhism of a sort, and Buddha lived before Christ, it is sometimes said that we have borrowed these things from them. All kinds of dependence have been suggested, even the ridiculous idea that our Lord travelled to Central Asia and studied there under Buddhist monks. Now, in the first place, Lamaism is a quite late degradation of Buddhism, introduced into Tibet about 640 a.d.;^[82] and, secondly, the mysterious likeness is explained by the fact that at that time there were flourishing Nestorian churches, with an elaborate ritual, all over these parts. Lamaist monasticism, holy water, incense, vestments are nothing but debased copies of what the natives had seen among the Nestorians. There is nothing mysterious about these things. At the source of the Lamaist ritual which so surprises the modern explorer stand a Nestorian monastery and a Nestorian bishop celebrating his liturgy.^[83]

These missions are the most remarkable and the most glorious episode in Nestorian history. It would be cruelly unjust to forget them. We think of the Nestorians as a wretched heretical sect, cut off from the Catholic Church and so gradually withering. They are that. But there is another side too. For a time, as long as they could, they did their share in the common Christian cause heroically. While they were cut off from the West, denounced by Catholics, Orthodox and Jacobites, while we thought of them as a dying sect in Persia, they were sending missions all over Asia. Those forgotten Nestorian missionaries, they were not Catholics but they were Christians. Braving long journeys, braving heathen tyrants and horrible danger, they brought the name of Christ north to Lake Baikal, south to Ceylon, and east right into the heart of China. They must have baptized thousands, and they taught the wild men of Tartary to worship one God, to serve Christ, even if they did think him two hypostases, to love his mother, even if they did not call her Theotókos. Let that be remembered to their honour.

 

3. Nestorian Monasticism

There are now no Nestorian monasteries and few monks or nuns. What remnant there is of East Syrian monasticism is only to be found among the Uniate Chaldees. But monasticism was once a very flourishing institution in this Church. It played so great a part in their history that we must say at least a word about it here.

Their own tradition is that a certain Augīn^[84] brought the monastic life from Egypt in the 4th century. He had been a pearl fisherman in the Red Sea. Then he became a monk in the Nitrian desert, and eventually, with seventy companions, set out for Nisibis. Here he founded the first East Syrian monastery on Mount Īzlâ, near the city. Three hundred and fifty disciples gathered round him and kept the rule he had brought from the Fathers of the Egyptian desert. So Mâr Augīn of Egypt founded monasticism in the East.^[85] Most modern scholars doubt this story altogether.^[86] As a matter of fact, monasticism was already so established in Western Syria that it must have spread eastwards with Christianity. There is no need to look for the name of one special founder here. Monks came, probably as the first missionaries, and monasteries were built as soon as churches. So East Syria and Persia received monasticism simply as a natural part of the Christian system. We have seen that in very early days there were "sons" and "daughters of the Covenant" in the East Syrian Church (p. 43). This was the beginning which only needed organization to develop into regular monasticism. During the 5th century, when the Persian Church was in its lowest state and all celibacy was abolished among the clergy (p. 81), a synod ordained contemptuously that anyone who wanted not to marry had better go to a monastery.^[87] But about this time we hear of even monks and nuns marrying.^[88] Now, monasticism without celibacy is no monasticism at all. Always the "angelic" life has been the essence of what we called religious orders. So, in the 5th century, the religious life was nearly extinct in Persia. In the 6th century came a great reform and a new beginning of monasticism.^[89] This was made by Abraham of Kashkar, called the Great. He is the second founder of Persian monastic life, the organizer and head of all its later developement, so that he holds a place analogous to that of St. Basil and St. Benedict.

Abraham was born in 491 or 492 in the land of Kashkar.^[90] He studied at Nisibis, then went to the Egyptian desert, as St. Basil had done, to learn the rule of monks at the fountain-head of Christian monasticism. After staying at Sinai and other famous centres of the religious life, he came back to Nisibis and founded or restored a monastery at Mount Īzlâ. Here he gathered around him a great number of monks, who then spread his rule throughout the Persian Church. He died in the odour of sanctity, aged ninetyfive, in 586. The Nestorians remember Rabban Abraham the Great rightly as the "Father of Monks." Thomas of Margâ says that God "established him to be the father of the army of virgins and men of abstinence"^[91]; again: "As formerly everyone who wished to learn and become a master of the heathen philosophy of the Greeks went to Athens, the famous city of philosophers, so in this case everyone who desired to be instructed in spiritual philosophy went to the holy monastery of Rabban Mâr Abraham and inscribed himself in sonship to him."^[92] After him came Dâdyeshu‘ as abbot.^[93] Their rules have been preserved.^[94] These are merely the old Egyptian rule slightly modified to suit Persia. Monks wore a tunic, belt, cloak, hood and sandals. They carried a cross and a stick. The Nestorian monks wore a tonsure formed like a cross, to distinguish them from those of the Jacobites.^[95] At first they met seven times a day for common prayer (the canonical hours). Later it was reduced to four times. They worked in the fields; those who could copied books. They abstained from fleshmeat always, ate one meal (of bread and vegetables) a day, at the sixth hour (mid-day). Then they all lay down and slept awhile. After three years of probation a monk could, with the abbot's leave, retire to absolute solitude as a hermit. After Abraham of Kashkar celibacy was, of course, enforced very strictly. Nestorian monks were always subject to the local bishop; all their property, for instance, was administered and controlled by him. Labourt counts this a characteristic note of Eastern monasticism, and notes how it strengthened the hands of the hierarchy.^[96]

An interesting picture of Nestorian monasticism is given by Thomas of Margâ in his Book of Governors (Ktâbâ drīshâne), otherwise called Historia monastica. Thomas was a monk at Beth ‘Abe (a dependency of Mount Izla) in the early 9th century. He became Bishop of Marga, and eventually Metropolitan of Beth Garmai, north of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, east of the Tigris. He wrote his book about 840. It is a collection of stories of monks, from Abraham of Kashkar down to his own time, like the Historia Lausiaca of Palladius.^[97]

Labourt thinks that the Nestorians, like the Jacobites, owe it to their monasteries that they were able to withstand the flood of Islam.^[98] They had flourishing monasteries, with many famous monks^[99] till the general disaster of Timur Leng. Since then the religious life vegetates only among them. They still have a few wandering monks, but no longer any fixed monasteries (p. 135).

 

Summary

In this chapter we have seen a general picture of the Nestorian Church from its definite adoption of that heresy till the 19th century. From the 7th century at latest we must count the ancient Church of Persia as committed to the heresy condemned by the Council of Ephesus. It was already schismatical. In its isolation this Church had periods of great degradation alternately with moral revivals. Mâr Abâ I, in the 6th century, deserves to be remembered as an illustrious reformer. In the 7th century the Moslem Arabs conquered Persia; so the Nestorians found themselves under new masters. The Arab capital was Bagdad; the Nestorian Patriarch came to live here, and for about six centuries his people were not altogether badly treated, while they remained the chief source of general civilization for their Moslem rulers. Jengiz Khan did them no great harm either. During this time thay had most nourishing missions all over Asia, so that their Patriarch was head of a large hierarchy, including bishops even in China. Timur Leng in the 13th century put an end to all their prosperity, destroyed their missions, and left them a poor remnant in Kurdistan. Here they had a great quarrel about the Patriarchal succession in the 16th century, out of which emerge rival lines and the beginning of reunion with Rome. During the time before Timur Leng monasticism was a flourishing institution among them; now it has practically disappeared.

 

1. Labourt gives notices of each of the Patriarchs. For those between Mârabâ and the Moslem conquest (scil. 552–637) see op. cit. pp. 192–246; also Wigram: The Assyrian Church, pp. 210–264.
2. Mṣalyâne from ṣlâ; pa‘‘el: ṣallī (Ar. ṣalla), to pray.
3. "Μασσαλιανοὶ οὗτοι καλοῦνται ἑρμηνευόμενοι." Hær. lxxx. 1–3 (P.G. xlii. 755–762).
4. So in Sbaryeshu‘'s first synod, 596 (Labourt: op. cit. p. 215).
5. Ḫusrau.
6. "Hope in Jesus."
7. For the reign of Sbaryeshu‘ I and his works, see Assemani: Bibl. Orient. ii. 441–449; Labourt: op. cit. pp. 210–221; Wigram: op. cit. pp. 221–224.
8. Labourt, p. 243.
9. Ib. note 4.
10. For this word see p. 24.
11. See Barhebræus: Chron. eccl., ed. cit. ii. 116–118. But Labourt thinks that his account of the welcome given to Moslems by Christians may be exaggerated (in later times) to secure the favour of the Moslem Government; op. cit. 245–246. The story of the Arab invasion and conquest of Persia has been told many times. See, for instance, Gibbon's chapter li., and Bury's note on the chronology, Appendix 21 to vol. v. of his edition of the Decline and Fall (pp. 540–543), Methuen, 1898. Bibliography will be found there in App. i., ib. 512–516.
12. Labourt: op. cit. p. 246.
13. Ra‘iyyah, "herd," "flock," the legal name for an alien religious community tolerated under a Moslem Government.
14. Ahl-aḏḏimmah.
15. See Orth. Eastern Church, 233–237.
16. So far this is likely enough. Mohammed's twisted knowledge of Christianity and of various Christian legends (as shown in the Ḳorān) was evidently gathered from talking to Christians. He often refers to monks (e.g. Sūrah lvii. 27). There were Nestorian missions in Arabia in his time; his informant is more likely to have been a Nestorian than anything else. Indeed, some references to our Lord in the Ḳorān suggest a Nestorian origin (e.g. S. ii. 81, 254; xliii. 57–65; v. 116–117, etc.).
17. This is the famous Testament of Mohammed, published by Gabriel Sionita (Paris, 1630).
18. Assemani: Bibl. Orient. iii. (part 2), p. 95; here also the Testament of Mohammed is quoted.
19. Ib. iii. i. p. 131.
20. Namely, the barā‘ah (commonly called berat), which he received from the Government.
21. Published in the Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenlandsgesellschaft, vii. (1853), pp. 221–223.
22. So the Turks have often made the head of one religious body civil head of others too (the Gregorian Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople over Uniate Armenians, etc.), to the great disadvantage of these.
23. A. v. Kremer: Culturgeschichte des Orients (Vienna, 1875–1877), ii. 168. An account of the state of Christians under the Khalifs at Bagdad will be found here, pp. 162–177.
24. Labourt: De Timotheo I, Nestorianorum patriarcha, et christianorum orientalium condicione sub caliphis Abbasidis (Paris, 1904).
25. "Mercy of Jesus."
26. Barhebræus tells it: Chron. eccl., ed. cit. ii. 168; and Maris: Liber Turris, ed. cit. p. 63.
27. Not because of the bribing trick; that was fair war: but because the Metropolitans of Beth Lapaṭ, Maishan, Arbela, and Beth Sluk were not present at the election; Labourt: De Timotheo I, p. 11.
28. Labourt: op. cit. 18–19. It is curious that many Nestorians professed themselves Monotheletes, when that question came up. It seems at first like joining two opposite heresies. But Nestorians found the unity of Christ not in one hypostasis but in one operation, ἐνέργεια, though they must have meant only one operation morally. Anyhow, they were very civil to the Monotheletes, who thus held the unique position of pleasing both Nestorians and Monophysites.
29. So G. D. Malech: History of the Syrian Nation, 269–270.
30. We have seen that Arabic knowledge of Greek philosophy came through the Nestorians. Averroes and Avicenna, and through them St. Thomas Aquinas, may owe their knowledge of Aristotle to this very Timothy.
31. Op. cit. 27–28.
32. Ib. 29.
33. Ib. 35.
34. Abū Raiḥān Muḥammad Ibn Aḥmad alBīrūnī was born at Khiva in 973, and died in 1048. He wrote a work which he calls Alāthār albāḳiya ‘an-il-Kurun Alkhāliya ("Traces of Former Generations"). It is a description of religions and sects, as he knew them, about the year 1000. He does not mention the Mazdæans (unless this part has been destroyed). His book is translated and edited by C. E. Sachau (London: Oriental Transl. Fund, 1879).
35. Ed. Sachau, chap. xv. pp. 282–284.
36. Abu-lFatḥ Muḥammad Ibn ‘Abdu-lKarīm Ash-Shahrastāni, born a.d. 1086 at Shahrastān by the desert of Khorasan. He lived three years at Bagdad, wrote many philosophical and theological works, and died at Shahrastān a.d. 1153.
37. Kitāb alMilal wanNiḥal. It contains accounts of Moslem sects, then the Ahl alKitāb (Jews and Christians), then people who have something "like a book" (mithl Kitāb), namely Mazdæans, Manichæans, Gnostics, etc. The second part treats of Greek, Arab, Buddhist and Hindu philosophers. The book is edited by W. Cureton in Arabic: Book of Religious and Philosophical Sects (2 vols., London, 1842–1846), in German by T. Haarbrücker: Schahrastāni's Religionspartheien u. Philosophenschulen (2 vols., Halle, 1850–1851).
38. Ed. Haarbrücker, i. 259–267.
39. For the Mongol invasion see Gibbon, chap. lxiv. (ed. cit. vol. vii. 1–22).
40. See Chabot: Histoire de Mar Jab-Alaha, Patriarche, et de Raban Sauma (Paris, ed. 2, 1895).
41. Denḥâ means "splendour," "epiphany." J. B. Chabot published a panegyric of Denḥâ I, written after his death by a contemporary monk, John (Journal asiatique, Jan.–Feb. 1895). It tells the story of his life, and throws light on the state of the Nestorians in his time.
42. Rabban Ṣaumâ was born at Ḥan-bāliḳ (which is Pekin).
43. This astonishing name is simply "il re Carlo due" (Chabot: op. cit. p. 60).
44. Honorius IV († Apr. 3, 1287).
45. One would not, of course, expect a Nestorian to admit more than this. But the surprise of seeing this Chinese Christian seems to have made the Romans easily satisfied with his position.
46. For all this see Chabot: Histoire de Mar Jab-Alaha (op. cit.).
47. For Timur Leng (Tamerlane) see Gibbon's lxvth chapter (ed. cit. vol. vii. pp. 44–68).
48. Namely, the Patriarch of the present Nestorian line; for there have been disputed successions, with the curious result noted at p. 103.
49. These "notables" are the heads of the chief families who succeed the o d courtiers (scribes and physicians) in their influence on elections (p. 93).
50. Arabic = "Blessed."
51. "Ascension."
52. There had been temporary reunions before.
53. ‘Bedyeshu‘, "Servant of Jesus."
54. He was present at the last session of the Council of Trent, Dec. 4, 1563.
55. La Chaldée chrétienne, p. 45.
56. Dr. Neale appears to be pleasantly surprised that no Pope would accept a Nestorian profession of faith; this he thinks a point in their favour (in Badger's Nestorians and their Rituals, i. 404). One is glad that he is pleased, but really these people are amazing. Apparently they think Rome quite capable of throwing overboard Ephesus, if it suits her purpose.
57. For all this see J. Labourt: "Note sur les schismes de l'Église Nestorienne," in the Journal asiatique, x. série, vol. xi. (1908), pp. 227–235; and A. d'Avril: La Chaldée chrétienne, pp. 43–47.
58. One of the ruined churches of Famagusta is still known as the Nestorian church; see Enlart: L'Art gothique et la renaissance en Chypre (Paris, 1899), i. 356–365.
59. Now Kalyāna, near Bombay.
60. Ed. M'Crindle: The Christian Topography of Cosmas, an Egyptian Monk (London, Hakluyt Soc., 1897), pp. 118, 120, 365. Kosmas calls these "Persian Christians." He was probably himself a Nestorian.
61. His letter is in Assemani: Bibl. Orient. iii. (part 1), 130–131.
62. Ed. cit. p. 119.
63. Lequien: Or. Christ. ii. 1141.
64. William Marsden's translation, chap. xxxv. (ed. by Thomas Wright, G. Newnes, 1904, p. 371). But these people may possibly have been Jacobites, as the Portuguese thought, when they came (ib., note) On the other hand, there are many authorities besides Marco Polo for their connection with the Nestorian Patriarch. Did they fluctuate from one sect to the other, like the people of Malabar?
65. Avril: La Chaldée chrétienne, p. 16.
66. Marco Polo, chap. xxxi. (ed. cit. p. 84).
67. Chap. xxxii. (p. 85).
68. Chap. xxx. (p. 83).
69. Chaps. xliv., liv., lv.
70. Prot. Real-Enc. (Herzog and Hauck): "Johannes Presbyter" (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1901), ix. 313.
71. Ib.
72. Ib. p. 313. John of Monte Corvino, O.F.M., titular Archbishop of Cambalia, converted a descendant of Owang and all his subjects to the Catholic Church in 1292. But the union did not last.
73. See G. Oppert: Der Presbyter Johannes in Sage u. Geschichte, 2nd ed., Berlin, 1870.
74. "The Crucified has conquered."
75. Assemani: Bibl. Orient. iii. (part 2), p. 426. A considerable account of Nestorian missions will be found here, pp. 414–434.
76. There are several curious heresies of this kind which combine to exonerate the Jesuits from having forged it.
77. Olopun or Olopwen is perhaps Syriac = Allâhâ-pnâ, "God converts."
78. Assemani: Bibl. Orient. iii. (part 2), pp. 538–552, gives a long description of the monument and a translation of the inscription. Cf. P. Carus: The Nestorian Monument (Chicago: Open Court Publishing Co., 1909), with illustrations of the stone. H Thurston, S.J.: "Christianity in the Far East," II., The Month, Oct. 1912, pp. 382–394.
79. Assemani: Bibl. Orient. iii. (part 2), p. 630.
80. A History of the Holy Eastern Church, i. p. 143.
81. St. Francis Xavier preached here in 1542.
82. L. A. Waddell: The Buddhism of Tibet, London, 1895, p. 9.
83. Ib. 421–422.
84. Eugene.
85. His legend is told in P. Bejān: Acta martyrum et sanctorum (Leipzig, 1890–1895). iii. pp. 376–480.
86. So Labourt: Le Christianisme dans l'empire perse, pp. 302–314. The significant fact is that Thomas of Marga in the work quoted below (p. 112) ignores Augin altogether.
87. Synod of Acacius in 486 (p. 81), Can. ii. (Chabot: Synodicon orientale, pp. 302–303): "Let them go into monasteries and wild places and stay there."
88. Bar Ṣaumâ married a nun (p. 81). In 499 a synod allowed monks to marry; ib. n. 1.
89. It was part of Mâr Abâ's general reform of the Church; see p. 83.
90. In Mesopotamia, south of Seleucia-Ctesiphon.
91. Book of Governors, ed. by E. A. Wallis Budge (2 vols., London, 1893); ii. p. 38.
92. Ib. p. 42. See all the chapter (37–42) for Abraham's life.
93. Ib. chap. v. pp. 42–44.
94. Chabot: Regulæ monasticæ ab Abraham et Dadjesu conditæ (Rome, 1898); see also Wallis Budge's edition of Thomas of Margâ, vol. i. pp. cxxxiv–clvi, and Duval: Littérature syriaque, p. 180.
95. Book of Governors, ii. 40–41.
96. Le Christianisme dans l'empire perse, p. 324.
97. Dr. E. A. Wallis Budge has edited it, in Syriac and English, with an introduction about Persian monasticism and copious notes (The Book of Governors, 2 vols., Kegan Paul, 1893).
98. Op. cit. p. 324.
99. E.g. Babai the Great was a monk of Mount Īzlâ (p. 83).