history of nestorian christianity

8/2/2019 History of Nestorian Christianity

1/235


2/235


3/235


4/235

THE NESTORIAN CHURCHES


5/235


6/235

THE/NESTORIANCHURCHESA CONCISE HISTORY OF NESTORIANCHRISTIANITY IN ASIA FROMTHE PERSIAN SCHISMTO THE MODERNASSYRIANS

by

AUBREY R. VINEM.A., B.D., B.Sc. / /With Foreword by

HIS BEATITUDEMAR ESHAI SHIMUNPATRIARCH OF THE EAST

LONDON :INDEPENDENT PRESS, LTDMEMORIAL HALL, E.C-4


7/235

First published 1937All rights reserved

~b~\ if-fc

>, *

Made and printed in Great BritainBy The Camelot Press LtdLondon and Southampton


8/235

TOPERCY EDWARD BRAND

my Maecenas


9/235


10/235

FOREWORDIF this book serves to stimulate interest in the Churchof the East, whose history has been so much moredifficult than that of Western Christianity, I shall begratified. My people have had a great struggle tomaintain their Christian faith. They have had tostand against other religions having the advantage ofState support, and they have frequently suffered ingreat racial disturbances. But their witness goes on,and I pray God that easier days may soon be grantedthem; this work may help toward that end if it enlargesthe vision and sympathy ofEnglish-speaking Christians.I favour every contribution toward the bringing intocloser relationship of all the people of God : for 'thereshall be one fold, and one shepherd. 5

CElLondon,

February 1937.


11/235


12/235

PREFACETHE Nestorian churches, which constitute the oldestsurviving schism from the Catholic Church of theearly centuries, were almost completely isolated fromthe rest of Christendom for over a millennium. Thatfact alone makes the study of their history interesting,though at the same time it has greatly reduced theirsignificance iri the general trend of ecclesiastical his-tory. Consequently, little attention is usually given tothem. In so far as the study of theology is concernednot much is lost, nor have they had much influence inthe moulding of civilizations, Christian or otherwise.But their history is of value in showing how Chris-tianity was able to survive centuries of subjection, forduring the greater part of their history the NestorianChristians constituted a despised minority in the midstof populations owning allegiance to other faiths.

In the following chapters an attempt will be made togive a concise account of their fortunes. At the out-set, however, it must be stated that the degree ofaccuracy to be expected in such a history is not com-parable with that which can be looked for in historiesdealing with events in Europe. For this there areseveral reasons. First, the sources are fewer, and itis not so often possible to check one source againstanother. It is therefore sometimes impossible to check


13/235

IO THE NESTORIAN CHURCHESa source of information except by internal evidence,and when some of the matter is obviously legendary,the nature of the real facts is often entirely a matter ofopinion.

Secondly, there is not the same sure framework ofsecular history. Much of the work of the Nestorianswas done among peoples whose records are scanty andunreliable, and even when the secular history, as inPersia, is fairly complete and trustworthy, it is notalways possible to relate the fortunes of the churchesto the general events of the time. This is due to thefact that their influence on general affairs was usuallyso much less than has been the case in Europe, so thatcross references between secular and ecclesiasticalhistory are not so frequent.

Thirdly, the sources are difficult of access anddifficult to use. A history of the Nestorian churches,compiled entirely from original sources, would necessi-tate a knowledge of at least a dozen Oriental languagesand leisure to travel over a great part of Europe andAsia. It is inevitable, therefore, that much must beaccepted at second hand, and the best that can bedone is to compile a continuous history from suchmaterial as is accessible. Such a work can naturallymake little claim to originality except in the exerciseof critical judgement in selecting and arranging thematerial; hence indebtedness to former writers is to betaken as implicit throughout the book. To avoid unduemultiplication of footnotes, it is to be understood thatmention of a book in the bibliography implies that usehas been made of it, and as a rule references will only


14/235

PREFACE IIbe given in footnotes when it is probable that theactual authority for a particular statement may bedesired, when sentences are quoted almost verbatim,or when it is intended to indicate that the fact oropinion quoted is not necessarily accepted by thepresent writer.As to the accuracy of facts, only what seems reason-ably probable will be recorded. It must be understood,however, that there is often considerable difference ofopinion as to what should be accepted and whatrejected; such expressions as cit seems probable,' 'it ispossible,' and the like, will therefore be sometimesemployed to indicate a degree of uncertainty. As todates, many of them are only approximate, even whencirca is not prefixed. In the case of the lists of thepatriarchs the main differences of opinion will beindicated.The spelling of proper names and titles presents

another problem. When an Anglicized form existswhich is generally familiar as the name of a person orpersons in ancient history, that form will be used. Thusit seems undesirable to replace names like John,Timothy, Theodore, and Cyril by more correct butless familiar forms. On the other hand, some Angli-cized forms look out of place in ancient settings, andGeorgius is therefore preferred to George. Forms suchas Nestor, Diodore, and Dioscor will also be rejectedin favour of Nestorius, Diodorus, and Dioscorus,because in such cases the Anglicized form has nocurrency except with reference to those persons.Latin and Greek names little


15/235

12 THE NESTORIAN CHURCHESthat it is occasionally doubtful whether to use theLatin or the Greek form. For example, Catholicus orKatholikos serves equally well, though in general Latin-ized forms will be preferred. Mixed forms are usuallyto be avoided, though the present patriarch has adoptedthe form Catholicos, as may be seen in the Foreword.But Oriental names present greater difficulty, as somany systems of transliteration have been used, andthe same name may occur in upwards of a dozendifferent guises. Fortescue discusses the matter at somelength in the preface to his Lesser Eastern Churches, 1and ends by adding yet another system. The methodsrecommended by the British Association are in severalinstances already out-moded. It has therefore beenconsidered best to follow in the main the usage of thelatest edition (the fourteenth) of the EncyclopediaBritannica, though, as might be expected, it is notalways consistent from article to article, nor invariablyto be endorsed. But as it is the most generallyrecognized authority, it seems best to follow it.

This involves adopting some forms which are not yetpopular, mostly in a small group of Arabic words. AsArabic only uses the three vowels a, i and u, no othervowels should be used in transliterating pure Arabicwords. Unfortunately, in the past e has often beenput instead of a or i, and o instead of u. Thus familiarwords like Moslem and Omar should, without doubt,correctly be rendered Muslim and Umar. The sameapplies to Abu Bekr, Othman, and Omayyad, whichshould be Abu Bakr, Uthman, and Umayyad.

1 pp. vi-viii.


16/235

PREFACE 13There is not the same compunction in adopting the

spelling Muhammad for the Arabian prophet. Themuch-used Mahomet is an error which has no defencebut age. Even so long ago as the end of the eighteenthcentury Assemani called attention to it: 'Per id tempusinnotuit Mohammed, quern vulgo Mahometumdicimus, Tajorum seu Arabum propheta.' 1 An addi-tional objection to Mahomet is that it gives no derivatives.Although the faith and followers ofMuhammad shouldbe termed Islam and Muslims respectively, it sometimeshappens that connexion with the prophet himselfneeds to be, emphasized. In such cases, and only insuch cases, Muhammadanism and Muhammadans may beused. Other forms such as Mahommed, Mohammed, andtheir derivatives, are also better discarded. They haveforfeited consideration by their very variety. But theEncyclopedia Britannica is conservative with regard toKoran, not adopting Quran.Usually only one form of spelling will be put in the

text, except that, in direct quotations, if the form of aname differs more than slightly from that in generaluse, the usual form will be added in brackets or as afootnote. But as some names have variants so differentthat it might not be easy to recognize them as the sameperson or place, a supplemental index has been addedlisting some of the more usual alternatives (pp. 223-227). This supplemental index is by no meansexhaustive, but it may help readers to trace names theymay have met elsewhere in forms different from thosegiven in this work, and by analogy may serve to indicate

1 Bibliotheca Orientalis, III. ii. 94.


17/235

14 THE NESTORIAN CHURCHESthe general nature of such variations, so that namesnot listed will often be safely identified. Thus it willbe seen that a and e, i and e, u and 0, k and c, q andk, k and ch, w and v, are often interchanged; that hmay be inserted or omitted at the beginning or end ofa word, or inserted or omitted after g, s, t, and otherletters; that the Arabic article at is sometimes retainedand sometimes dropped, and when retained is some-times hyphened and sometimes joined directly to itsnoun. But diacritical marks of every kind, accents,quantities, and breathings, have been omitted through-out, except in quotations from Greek, so that a formsuch as Kald'un would be listed simply as Kalaun. Norare variants listed which depend merely on the presenceor absence of a hyphen, such as Il-Khan and Ilkhan, orwriting a name divided or run together, such as BarSauma and Barsauma. It must also be realized thatsome of the forms given in the supplemental index arequite indefensible: they are not approved, they aremerely listed for reference.Not only will the supplemental index be of use fortracing variants in the spelling of the same name, butit will enable the various changes in the name of thesame town to be followed, a frequent cause ofconfusion.Many towns have had their names changed by con-querors, or have had their names changed for otherreasons, or have had different names in differentlanguages. Thus Seleucia, named after SeleucusNicator in the third century B.C., was renamed Veh-Ardashir (Beth Ardashir) by Ardashir (Artaxerxes) Iin the third century A.D., though the old name remained


18/235

PREFACE 15in use side by side with the new one. A third name forthe same place was provided by the Arabs in theseventh century, who named it, jointly with Gtesiphon,al-Madain. Thus many towns must be recognizedunder two or even three quite different names, as wellas under varying forms of the same name. Usuallythe same form will be used throughout for the sametown, rather than different forms appropriate to thevarious periods. Thus Jundishapur is an Arabicform. In the Persian period Gondisapor might bepreferable, or Beth Lapat, the Syriac name of the sameplace. But to avoid confusion Jundishapur willgenerally be used, and will be added in brackets evenwhen another form has to be employed.The connotations of a few words need to be defined:Roman Empire will be used throughout for what is

usually styled the Eastern Roman or ByzantineEmpire, whose capital was Constantinople (Byzan-tium) ; for the justification of this usage see the Cam-bridge Medieval History, Vol. IV., pp. vii-viii. Thewords schism and heresy will be used to mean theseparation, administratively and doctrinally respec-tively, of a person or group from a church to whichthey formerly belonged, and must be taken as simplydescriptive

of historic fact, without in any way imply-ing whether the action or opinion was right or wrong.In the same way people will be accorded withoutqualification the names and descriptions they claimedfor themselves, whether Patriarch, Bishop, Priest,Church, or Christian. Thus the word Church will beused where some might prefer sect; but the use of the


19/235

l6 THE NESTORIAN CHURCHESword is not to be taken as involving any judgement.Similarly, when the word sect is used, it is not neces-sarily derogatory: it simply means a part cut off froma whole or from a greater part.As to the general arrangement of the material, it isvery difficult to set it out satisfactorily. It is hopedthat the analytical table of contents on pp. 19-20 willmake the general plan sufficiently clear, and that cross-references and the index will suffice as aids in tracingthe events connected with a given person or place.Rather more general history has been introduced thansome might think necessary; but without it the storymoves against a nebulous background, and so losesmuch of its coherence.

AUBREY R. VINEReading,

February 1937.


20/235

CONTENTSCHAPTER PAGE

Foreword 7*

Preface 9Analytical Table of Contents 19

I. The Origin of Nestorianism 21II. Transition to Persia 37

III. The Nestorian Church in the tune of Babai,497-502 53

IV. The Nestorian Church under the Sassanids,502-651 64

V. The Nestorian Church under the Caliphate,651-1258 83

VI. The Nestorian Church under the Mongols andTimur, 1258-1405 141

VII. The Nestorian Church in Kurdistan, 1405-1914 170

VIII. The Nestorian Church in Exile, 1914-1936 194Bibliography 209Index 211Supplemental Index ofVariants in the Spellingof names 223


21/235


22/235

ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE

Chapter I. The Origin of Nestorianism 2 1Relation of Nestorius to Nestorianism - The Christo-logical problem Council of Nicaea ApollinarianismSchool of Alexandria School of Antioch The titleTheotokos Cyril and Nestorius Council of EphesusBanishment ofNestorius - School ofEdessa - Last years ofNestorius - Estimate.

Chapter II. Transition to Persia 37Importance of Edessa - Rabbulas and Ibas- Renewedconflict between Alexandria and Constantinople overEutychianism Ibas involved Tome of Leo RobberCouncil of Ephesus Council of Chalcedon End ofSchool of Edessa - Nestorian remnant flee to Persia -Barsumas - The Persian Church moves towards independ-ence and Nestorianism.

Chapter III. The Nestorian Church in the time of 53Babai, 497-502Babai and Narses - Theology of Narses and the Nestorianformula Extent of the Patriarchate in: (i) The PersianEmpire - (ii) Arabia - (iii) India - (iv) Turkestan -

(v) China.Chapter IV. The Nestorian Church under the Sassa-

nids, 502-651 64i. Relation to the State: Zoroastrianism, Roman wars,occasional persecution, Arab expansion 2. Internalcondition: Mar Aba I, Joseph, Abraham of Kaskar andmonasticism, Mar Babai the Great 3. Nestorianchurches outside Persia: Arabia, India, Turkestan, ChinaList of bishops, catholici and patriarchs, 315-660 Listof Sassanid kings, 224651.

Chapter V. The Nestorian Church under the Cali-phate, 651-1258 83

i. Relation to the State: the Caliphate, Muhammad, theKoran, persecutions, taxation, restrictions 2. Internalcondition: advance followed by decline, causes of decline,Timothy I, extent in the tenth century, list of provinces3. Nestorian churches outside Persia: Arabia, the West,India, Turkestan, China -List of patriarchs, 650-1317-List of Caliphs - List ofMongol Great Khans.


23/235

2O ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE

Chapter VI. The Nestorian Church under the Mongols 141and Timur, 1258-1405Rise of the Mongols -Jenghiz Khan - Hulagu - Favourto Christians - Muslim reaction - Mongols tend to Islam -Yaballaha III - Rabban Sauma and the Pope - Persecu-tion of Christians Decline of the churches TimurNestorians reduced to Kurdistan Nestorian churchesoutside Persia: India, Turkestan, China List of MongolGreat Khans and Ilkhans.

Chapter VII. The Nestorian Church in Kurdistan,1405-1914 170Settlement in Kurdistan - Succession dispute - SimonDenha and John Sulaka - Uniates and schismatics -Modern missions begin Their work and problemsPosition in 1914: extent and administration, theology andbeliefs, services and rites.

Chapter VIII. The Nestorian Church in Exile, 1914-I936 . . 194The Great War Misfortunes in Kurdistan Flight toPersia Trek to Iraq Iraq under the Mandate Iraqindependent The problem of settlement Hopes for thefuture - Conclusion.

Maps1 . The Patriarchate of the East, A.D. 500 582. Nestorian Churches in the Caliphate, tenth

century 1213. Nestorian Churches in the Caliphate, A.D. 1258 1224. The Nestorian Church in the tenth century 1365. Map illustrating the history of the Nestorians since

1405 196


24/235

CHAPTER ITHE ORIGIN OF NESTORIANISM

NESTORIUS, a fifth-century bishop of Constantinople,has provided a name for a heresy which he did notoriginate, possibly did not even hold, and for a Churchwhich he did not found. Nevertheless, his name hasbecome so firmly associated with a certain Christo-logical theory and with the churches which have heldthat theory that it is not now easy to find terms equallydefinite but more exactly descriptive. Nestorianism,therefore, must be understood to mean the Chris-tology supposedly held by Nestorius, though not origin-ated by him, and the Nestorian churches the churchesholding to the Nestorian Christology. It shouldperhaps be remarked that these churches have neverofficially used the title Nestorian to describe themselves,though they have not usually objected to it; their owndesignation is 'Church of the East.' But by retainingthe term 'Nestorian churches' emphasis is laid on thefact that their characteristic is theological rather thanmerely geographical.The formation of these churches into a separatecommunion was a gradual process, which may bedeemed to have reached- completion when Babai,Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (487-502), declared


25/235

22 ORIGIN OF NESTORIANISMthat the churches of Persia and other churches whichacknowledged him as their spiritual head were hence-forward to be completely independent of the churchesin the Roman Empire, and that Nestorian theologywas to be the basis of their doctrine. It is hardlydesirable, however, to begin their history at thatpoint. It is necessary to understand what Nestor-ianism was, why it was condemned by the orthodoxyof the Roman Empire, how it came to be associatedwith the churches in Persia, and how those churchescame to separate themselves from the rest of Christen-dom. This will necessitate a brief survey of the courseof Ghristology during the latter part of the fourthcentury and the earlier part of the fifth.The Council of Nicaea 1 (325) had establishedorthodox doctrine as to the full deity of Christ; andthough the repercussions of the Arian controversy2continued for some years, the Council ofConstantinople(381) reaffirmed the creed of Nicaea, and from thattime the Nicene Creed was accepted without question

1 The first (Ecumenical Council. Eight Church Councils are reckonedas oecumenical (general, universal): Nicaea, 325; Constantinople, 381;Ephesus, 431; Chalcedon, 451; Constantinople, 553; Constantinople,580; Nicasa, 787; Constantinople, 869. The Greeks, however, do notadmit the last one in this list; if they reckon an eighth, it is that ofConstantinople in 879.2 Arius taught that Christ was created {out of things which are not'(E oOx OVTCOV); and although prior to and superior to all the rest ofcreation, was not of the same essence (ofcrfcc) as God the Father. TheCouncil of Nicaea was called by the Emperor Constantine to resolve theacute controversy thus aroused. This Council drew up the NiceneCreed, which declares that Christ is the only begotten Son of God,begotten (not created) from the essence of the Father, and of likeessence (6uooOaios) to Him. It also places the generation of Christoutside time. (TCHJS SE AyovTocs f\v TTOTE OTE OUK fjv . . . ToO-rovsKal fiirocrroiiKfi eKKAr)aia.)


26/235

THE GHRISTOLOGIGAL PROBLEM 2$by orthodoxy within the Roman Empire. Indeed,soon afterwards, in 383, the Emperor Theodosius Ideclared Arianism to be contrary to Roman law, andthe Nicene Greed thus became the official creed ofboth Church and Empire.But the Nicene emphasis on the deity of Christ

brought into fresh prominence the problem of Hishumanity: if Christ were fully deity, to what extentand in what way could He also be human? Thisproblem, which had exercised the Gnostics 1 in thesecond century and Origen2 in the third, was broughtinto prominence again by Apollinarius. Apollinarius,bishop of Laodicaea (ob. 390), had put forward aChristology based on the Greek idea of man as tri-partite: body, animal soul, and intellect (CTCOJJIOC, yuxr|,vous). In Christ, intellect was replaced by the Logos(Aoyos), the eternally generated Word of God, whichApollinarius held to be fully deity. This view hadbeen condemned at the Council of Constantinople onthe ground that without a human intellect Christcould not be regarded as really man. Moreover, ifChrist were not completely human, His sacrifice asman for men would be to that extent defective; asGregory of Nazianzus cogently put it, ethat which isunassumed is unhealed' (TO yap cnTp6arAr)TrrovccOspcnreurov) . But the problem was not solved bythe mere rejecting of an unsatisfactory solution: it was

1 The Gnostics regarded Christ as a divine being, but not as deity;and they taught that His human form was a mere appearance (S6KTi


27/235

24 ORIGIN OF NESTORIANISMonly brought into greater prominence. Two modes ofapproach to the problem now became clearly differ-entiated, which were adopted by the school of Alexan-dria and the school of Antioch respectively.The Alexandrian school, at one time noted for itscomprehensive scholarship, had gradually adopted amore conservative attitude, and had become thestronghold of orthodox doctrine. Its influence wasparamount in Egypt, and of great consequencethroughout the West. During the earlier part of thefifth century the Alexandrian school had a remarkablycapable representative in Cyril (376-444), who hadbeen bishop of Alexandria since 412. His teachingmay be summarized thus: the Logos, pre-existing as ahypostatic distinction in the Godhead, united withHimself complete manhood. But the union was notin the nature of a mere contact or bond: the Logos hadnot only assumed flesh, but had become flesh. SoChrist was the Logos united with a complete humanbeing; but so perfect was the union that the twonatures, divine and human, constituted only oneperson. (This union ofthe two natures into one personis referred to as the hypostatic union.) Nevertheless,the two natures were not confused or mingled: ctheflesh is flesh and not deity, even if it has become fleshof God'; so that the one person still possessed the twocomplete natures, and could assess experiences accord-ing to each of them: as the Logos, His divine naturewas impassible and unchangeable; but through thehumanity He had taken to Himself, He entered intoall human feelings. Thus one person experienced


28/235

SCHOOL OF ALEXANDRIA 25through two perfectly united natures. This ability toexperience through both natures, although there isonly one person, is explained as due to an interchange(ccvTi8oc7is) between the natures of their respectivecharacteristics, the 'communicatio idiomatum' ofLatin theology. This last phrase is difficult to renderprecisely, but perhaps 'sharing of characteristics' mayserve. In this way the experiences of the God-manare both truly divine and truly human. (It will beseen that all this involves one rather serious difficulty:the Incarnation is simply an event in the eternal lifeof the Logos, but a beginning for the human life of Hisassumed manhood; but though there are two natures,there is onlyone person; one ofthe natures must thereforebe impersonal. As it is obvious that the Logos cannotbe regarded as impersonal, the human nature mustbe so regarded. Harnack considers that this reducesCyril's position to monophysitism, but Loofs maintainsthat it does not necessarily do so, so long as the humannature is maintained to be complete and real.) Tomake the union of natures absolute and complete, itseemed necessary to postulate that the process offusion proceeded in utero from the moment of con-ception. It would follow that the Virgin Mary, inbearing the man Jesus, bore also the Logos, that is,Deity: the Virgin 'had borne the Incarnate Wordaccording to the flesh.' Now while this is quite logicaland unexceptionable, the same idea, when expressedby applying the title Theotokos (GeoTOKos, 'bearer ofGod') to the Virgin Mary, was in danger of extensionbeyond its proper limits. Rightly understood, the


29/235

26 ORIGIN OF NESTORIANISMepithet is innocuous. But if loosely interpreted as'Mother of God,' there would obviously be danger ofthe Virgin Mary being popularly regarded almost asa goddess. Subsequent events were to prove what astorm centre this word could provide. The Alex-andrian school, therefore, postulated the full deityand the full humanity of Christ, and the perfect unionof the two complete natures in one person.But the Antiochene school, which dominated Syriaand Asia Minor, approached the problem from quitea different standpoint. Their approach was basednot so much on theological reasoning as on the inter-pretation of objective historical data, and to them theprimary reality was the historic Jesus. Indeed, theschool of Antioch is often referred to as the Syrianhistorico-exegetical school. Two particularly ableteachers had given form to the Antiochene Ghristology,Diodorus of Tarsus, founder of the school, and Theo-dore of Mopsuestia (ob. 429), his most famous pupil.Of Diodorus not a great deal is known, as all but afew fragments of his works have been lost. But theteaching of Theodore can with fair certainty bereconstructed, and it was undoubtedly he who gavedefinite form to the views for which Nestorius was latercondemned. Theodore taught that Christ was prim-arily and fully man, but that from before His birthGod's special complacency (suSoKicc) dwelt in Him.Theodore identifies this complacency with the Logos',carefully distinguishing the Logos from the Being ofGod, which is omnipresent and therefore indwells allmen and things indifferently. In addition to the


30/235

SCHOOL OF ANTIOGH 2JLogos, at His baptism Christ received the Holy Ghost,by whose power His subsequent work was done.Theodore regarded the union of manhood, Logos andHoly Ghost as progressive and not completely per-fected until the Ascension. Even so, the union wasregarded as due to a perfect complacency betweendivinity and humanity rather than to a union ofessence: it is 'according to complacency, not accordingto essence' (KOCT* suSoKiocv, ou KOCTS oucjiocv). Con-sequently the divine and human natures are in con-junction as though joined by some kind of bond(cruvcc9eta), rather than in a state of true unification(EVCOCTIS), though it must be admitted that Theodoredoes occasionally use the latter word. Theodore thusemphasizes the full humanity of Christ, but gives nosatisfactory account of the way in which the divine andhuman natures constitute one person. Indeed, al-though Theodore asserted the full and unique Sonshipof Christ, his Christology leaves the impression of aperson specially favoured, guided and empowered byGod, but hardly one to whom the term Deity could beapplied.Among those who were trained under the influence

of Theodore and his teaching was Nestorius. Of hisorigin and early life little is known, except that he wasborn at Germanicia near Mount Taurus in Syria.After a period as a monk at the monastery of Euprepiusnear Antioch, he became a presbyter at Antioch, wherehe gained some distinction both as a preacher and forthe austerity of his personal life. But he did not comeinto special prominence until difficulty arose in finding


31/235

28 ORIGIN OF NESTORIANISMa suitable successor to Sisinnius as bishop of Con-stantinople. Sisinnius had died in December 4275 andconflicting local interests had rendered the appoint-ment of a Gonstantinopolitan unwise. Looking toAntioch, Nestorius seemed suitable, so in April 428 hewas appointed to the vacant see.At first the appointment appears to have beenacceptable to all sections at Constantinople, bothclerical and lay; and although the choice had beenmade by the Court, the monkish party, whose leaderwas the Archimandrite Dalmatius, was apparentlyquite satisfied. Unfortunately, the satisfaction was ofshort duration. Nestorius became involved in acontroversy as to the propriety of applying the termTheotokos to the Virgin Mary. Whether Nestoriushimself precipitated the dispute by attacking the termin a sermon he preached early in 429, whether he wasdrawn into it by supporting his presbyter, Anastasius,who had attacked the term, or whether he merelybecame involved in a dispute that was already ragingwhen he arrived at Constantinople, cannot perhaps becertainly decided. 1 But the matter did arise, andNestorius became unhappily implicated. It wouldappear that he was personally quite opposed to theterm, and suggested replacing it by Christotokos(XpioroTOKOs, 'bearer of Christ'), saying, 'Mary didnot bear the Godhead; she bore a man who was theorgan of the Godhead. 5 But this compromise was notof much help in easing matters, and he eventuallyyielded

so far as to allow the use of the title Theotokos,1 For a discussion on this point, see Loofs, Nestorius, pp. 28-32.


32/235

NESTORIUS AT CONSTANTINOPLE 2Qprovided that its popular implications were not undulypressed.Had the controversy been purely local, it might havedied down and done no lasting harm. But Cyril,bishop of Alexandria, took it upon himself to interfere.His motives have been much discussed. It may bethat he was genuinely convinced that the term Theo-tokos had to be defended if the full deity of Christwere to be maintained. The word had been used byAthanasius and possibly by Origen, and was regardedas a defence against Unitarian tendencies. But lessdisinterested motives were certainly present. He wasjealous for the power of his see and of himself, and wasanxious that Constantinople should be influenced byAlexandria rather than by Antioch. He probably alsosaw the dispute as a challenge from AntiocheneChristology to Alexandrian Christology, and he mayhave thought that successful interference would estab-lish the ascendancy of the see of Alexandria over bothAntioch and Constantinople, thus helping to maintainAlexandria against the rapidly increasing prestige ofRome. Nestorius suggested an even less creditablemotive: that Cyril entered into the dispute in order todivert attention from accusations against himself; andthere is certainly some evidence pointing that way. 1But whatever the motives may have been, Cyril didinterfere. He prepared his way with care, fosteringenmity against Nestorius by agents in Constantinople,and taking steps to gain Celestine, bishop of Rome, onto his own side. Rome was probably to some extent

1 See Loofs, op. cit., pp. 33-41.


33/235

3


34/235

COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 31The emperor agreed to do so, and issued an orderaccordingly, which was dated November igth, 430,thus preceding by a narrow but sufficient margin thedelivery to Nestorius ofthe communications from Romeand Alexandria, which were received on December6th, 430.The oecumenical council was called for Whit-Sunday,June 7th, 431, and was to meet at Ephesus. Theproceedings reflected unfavourably on all concerned.The Syrian bishops, under the leadership of John ofAntioch, arrived more than a fortnight late, and theRoman legates still later. Cyril, meanwhile, hadinsisted on the council being opened. The emperor'scommissioner, Count Candidian, protested in vain,and the proceedings began. Nestorius refused to'appear before so unrepresentative an assembly, con-sisting for the most part of Egyptian partisans of Cyril.He was therefore condemned in absentia, a condemna-tion received in Ephesus with tumultuous approval,Memnon, the bishop of Ephesus, being favourable toCyril. When the Syrians arrived, however, they atonce joined with Nestorius in holding a rival council,at which they in turn deposed Cyril and Memnon.But when the Roman legates arrived, they sided withCyril.

Theodosius, acquainted with this unseemly impasse,appointed a second commissioner, Count John, whocut the Gordian knot by confirming all three deposi-tions, that of Nestorius by the Alexandrian section ofthe council, and those of Cyril and Memnon bythe Syrian section. Nestorius was sent back to the


35/235

32 ORIGIN OF NESTORIANISMmonastery of Euprepius, which just over three yearsearlier had witnessed his glorious departure for Constan-tinople. There he remained, no longer a figure ofconsequence, for the next four years. Cyril andMemnon fared better, probably owing to Cyril's skillin gaining friends at Court and elsewhere by intrigueand bribery. Cyril soon escaped from custody andreturned to Alexandria, where he resumed his epis-copate as though no deposition had been pronounced.He had evidently been able to gain the favour of theemperor, and of the emperor's elder sister Pulcheria,whose influence was considerable. A little laterMemnon was allowed to resume his office at Ephesus.As to the doctrinal problems, nothing had reallybeen settled at the Council of Ephesus, or rather at thetwo party councils. Theodosius, therefore, summonedeach group to send delegates to a further conference atChalcedon; but when it became clear that no decisionwas likely to be reached, Theodosius officially dissolvedit, merely expressing general approval of the orthodoxposition. Although it formulated no creed and settledno problem, the Council of Ephesus has to be reckonedthe third (Ecumenical Council.The events of the next few years reflect the astuteness

of Cyril and the weakness of the Antiochians. Thesuccessor of Nestorius as bishop of Constantinople wasMaximian, ofwhom Cyril approved. Having now thefriendship of the emperor and the co-operation of thenew bishop of Constantinople, Cyril proceeded byintrigue and bribery to force the Antiochians to cometo an understanding with him; for they continued to


36/235

EXILE 33hold Nestorius in esteem and regarded Cyril's twelveanathemas as heretical. But Cyril's methods eventu-ally triumphed, and in 433 Alexandrians and Antioch-ians made their peace. The terms were that theAntiochians should acknowledge the validity of Cyril'ssection of the council, at any rate as regards the anathe-matizing of Nestorius, though Cyril's twelve anathemaswere not specifically endorsed; and that the Alex-andrians should accept an Antiochian confession offaith. This agreement healed the breach betweenAlexandria and Antioch. In effect, the Syrians hadsacrificed Nestorius in order to secure peace withEgypt and the West; and John, bishop of Antioch, whohad been foremost among the Syrian negotiators, nowfound Nestorius, his former friend, a grave embarrass-ment. There were, therefore, few to voice protest orregret when in 435 Nestorius was banished, first toPetra in Arabia, and then to Oasis in Egypt, andTheodosius issued an edict ordering all his writings tobe destroyed and his adherents to be called Simonians.Though the influence of Nestorius was thus com-pletely ended in the school of Antioch, which hadformerly regarded him with pride, and although hewas now disowned by the great majority of his originalsupporters, the Syrian bishops, the position which hehad represented was by no means altogether forsaken.Many of the teachers in the important theologicalschool at Edessa were still attached to the doctrinalsystem of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and approvedneither of the events which had taken place at theCouncil of Ephesus nor of the discreditable way in


37/235

34 ORIGIN OF NESTORIANISMwhich peace had been arranged between Cyril andJohn. Thus it came about that the next scenes in thefortunes of Nestorianism were set at Edessa.But before passing on to Edessa, it may be desirable

to complete the personal history of Nestorius himself.There is not much to relate. Soon after his banishmentto Oasis he was captured by Blemmyes, maraudingnomads. They released him, evidently near Panopolis,for from there he wrote a letter to the governor, lest heshould be suspected of seeking to flee. The governordecided to send him to Elephantine, but changed hismind and sent him back to Panopolis. His place ofexile seems to have been changed several times, andthese removals and his broken health must have madehis life very hard. He must have survived, however,for about fifteen years after his banishment, as hisBazaar of Heraclides shows that he had heard of thedeath of Theodosius (450). The only relief to hisexile was the conviction that Leo and Flavian wereinclining to his position:

clt is my doctrine,' he wrote,'which Leo and Flavian are upholding! 3 He probablydied before the Council of Chalcedon in 451, and wasthus saved the humiliation of knowing that it, too, hadcondemned him. As to personal ambition, he hadabandoned it altogether, and never sought recall fromexile. Perhaps he feared that his return would onlyprecipitate further trouble, and he preferred to remainas he was rather than to do that: 'The goal of myearnest wish, then,' he wrote, 'is that God may beblessed on earth as in heaven. But as for Nestorius,let him be anathema! Only let them say of God what


38/235

ESTIMATE 35I pray that they should say. I am prepared to endureand to suffer all for Him. And would that all men byanathematizing me might attain to a reconciliationwith God. 5Thus died Nestorius, at a place unknown, at a dateunfixed, whose brief episcopate at Constantinople pre-cipitated events which placed his name for ever on thepages of history. A just estimate of him is not easilymade. Although his fate arouses our sympathy, hisconduct during his first months at Constantinople sug-gests that he would have been equally hard on worstedopponents of his own. In one of his first sermons beforethe emperor he said: 'Purge me, O Caesar, the earth ofheretics, and I in return will give thee heaven. Standby me in putting down the heretics, and I will standby thee in putting down the Persians.' He soon triedto implement these words by beginning a vigorouscampaign ofsuppression against Arians, Novatians, andQuartodecimans; so that if Nestorius had gained theupper hand, it may be questioned whether he wouldhave treated Cyril any better than Cyril treated him.

It was unfortunate that the purely theological disputewas so complicated by other considerations. Theologi-cally, there is no doubt whatever that Cyril was farmore capable than Nestorius. Cyril recognized whatwere the essentials of a sound Christology and boldlystated them, not shrinking from any implications.Nestorius had not so keen a mind, and possibly neverclearly distinguished between Godhead and deity norgrasped the idea which 'communicatio idiomatum5was meant to convey. His main concern was to prevent


39/235

36 ORIGIN OF NESTORIANISMmisuse of the term Theotokos, but that issue sooninvolved him in problems which were too deep for him.

It may, however, be safely asserted that Nestoriusnever held the crude view of Christ's person which isimplied by the formula 'Two natures, two persons,and one presence.' 1 If he was a heretic, as Bedjan2and Nau 3 maintain, it was his misfortune and not hischoice. Loofs4 and Bethune-Baker 5 take a morecomplacent view; but sympathy with a tragic fate mustnot lead us to condone defective theology. Yet thereis no escaping the conclusion that Nestorius was unfor-tunate in having an opponent, not simply so capable,but also so astute, so determined, and in some waysapparently so unscrupulous, as Cyril. Even if Cyrilwas theologically right, his methods were not alwayscommendable, and it would have been more satis-factory if sound Christology could have been upheldwith less acrimony and more charity.

1 See p. 54.2 German editor of the Bazaar of Heraclides.3 Translator into French of the Bazaar of Heraclides.* Nestoriana and Nestorius.6 Nestorius and his Teaching.


40/235

CHAPTER IITRANSITION TO PERSIA

ALTHOUGH Nestorius was banished, the ideas which hehad represented were not left without exponents. Ashas already been indicated, there was a strong elementfavourable to Nestorian views at the theological schoolat Edessa. The attitude of this school is of particularsignificance because at it most of the clergy for thechurches in Persia received their training. They weretrained at Edessa in Roman territory rather than inPersia, owing to the frequency and severity of thePersian persecutions at this period. (See the list onpp. 81-82.) At the time of the Nestorian controversyRabbulas had been bishop of Edessa since 412, andIbas was a presbyter of the church and head of thetheological school. Rabbulas seems to have vacillatedin his opinion of Nestorius; or perhaps he was swayedby considerations of policy rather than of doctrine.He had at first been unfavourable to Nestorius, preach-ing a sermon directed against him at Constantinople.At the Council of Ephesus, however, he had supportedNestorius against Cyril. But whenJohn ofAntioch hadcome to terms with Cyril, Rabbulas was among thosewho forsook Nestorius for the sake of peace withAlexandria and the West. From that time (433) till


41/235

38 TRANSITION TO PERSIAhis death in 435 he did what he could to maintainharmonious relations with the other churches of theRoman Empire.But Ibas had remained true to the Nestorian position.He was a devoted disciple of Theodore of Mopsuestia,whose works he had translated into Syriac; and think-

ing that Nestorius represented the views of Theodore,Ibas had sided with him at the Council of Ephesus.Subsequently he became less favourable to Nestoriuspersonally, as is evidenced by his letter to Maris. 1 Buthe never departed from the doctrinal positions ofTheodore, and as that is what is really meant byNestorianism, Ibas must be reckoned a consistentNestorian.Not only in the theological school, but also among

the laity in Edessa, there were very many who followedIbas rather than Rabbulas. It was, therefore, notsurprising that when Rabbulas died in 435 Ibas waschosen as bishop of Edessa, which see he occupiedfrom 436 to 457. He had not held his episcopate manyyears when the controversy concerning the two naturesof Christ broke out again. As at the time when Cyriland Nestorius were the protagonists, it was not onlytheological interests that were involved. Cyril haddied in 444, and had been succeeded in his bishopric1 This letter was written to 'Maris, bishop of Beth Ardashir' (i.e.Seleucia). But as the bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon at this time wasDadyeshu (421-456), Labourt suggests that Maris is really simply theSyriac Mari, 'My Lord,' and not a proper name. The letter denouncesRabbulas, and is Nestorian in tone, though Ibas seems to have lostregard for Nestorius himself. It was one of the 'Three Chapters' con-demned at the Council of Constantinople in 553, the fifth (EcumenicalCouncil. (Mar, Mari, and Mart represent the Syriac for Lord, My Lord,and Lady respectively.)


42/235

MONOPHYSITISM 39by Dioscorus, his archdeacon. The new bishop wasas jealous for the prestige of his see as his predecessorhad been, and was equally anxious to assert hisauthority over the East, particularly over Constan-tinople. There were three men whose downfall he wasconsequently eager to compass. One was Flavian,bishop of Constantinople; he was anxious to humblehim so that the authority of Alexandria over Con-stantinople might again be asserted, just as it had beenby Theophilus over Chrysostom and by Cyril overNestorius. The other two he held in enmity were thetwo leading representatives of the condemned NestorianChristology: Ibas of Edessa, and Theodoret of Cyrus.The first real opportunity for Dioscorus came in 448,when Flavian deposed Eutyches, archimandrite of amonastery near Constantinople, for denying the realityofthe two natures in Christ. He appears to have taughtthat there was a 'blending and confusion 5 (crOyKpamsml auyxuats) of Godhead and manhood at the In-carnation. The deposition took place at a synod heldat Constantinople. But Dioscorus refused to acknow-ledge the legality of the synod, and showed his disap-probation by entering into communion with Eutyches.The Emperor Theodosius II thereupon ordered ageneral council to be called at Ephesus to inquire intothe matter. Both sides meanwhile appealed to Leo,bishop of Rome. Leo delivered his judgement in adocument usually referred to as the Tome of Leo, inwhich he reiterated the position already established inthe West, that Christ had two natures in one person;and condemned the opinion of Eutyches, which he


43/235

40 TRANSITION TO PERSIAtook to imply that before the Incarnation there weretwo natures, but that when the divine and humanblended only one nature resulted, the divine. Thisstatement of the view, whether or not it is exactlywhat Eutyches taught, it called monophysitism. Leothus maintained that the question had already beensettled, so that no council was needed.

Nevertheless, the council was held. It met atEphesus in 449, and Dioscorus presided. More byintimidation than argument, Dioscorus had everythinghis own way: Eutyches was acquitted and reinstated,Flavian and his supporters were deposed, and Ibas andTheodoret were deprived of their sees and excom-municated. The whole of the proceedings was un-dignified and violent, so much so that Flavian died asthe result of the rough treatment he received there.Leo, indignant at the slight implied upon himself,declared that the council was nothing better than agathering of robbers (lactrocinium), and of noauthority. Leo's epithet was apt enough to be adopted,and the assembly is usually referred to as the RobberCouncil or Latrocinium. It is not reckoned among the(Ecumenical Councils.Thus Dioscorus triumphed, and Alexandria held a

sway over the East as absolute as that of Rome overthe West. But the triumph was shortlived. The nextyear, 450, Theodosius II died, and imperial supportfor Dioscorus ceased. Pulcheria, sister of Theodosius,became empress, and strengthened her position bymarrying Marcian, who was able and respected bothas a senator and a general. One of their first acts was


44/235

DECLINE IN EDESSA 4!to call a council to reconsider the verdicts which hadbeen reached so precipitately at Ephesus two yearsbefore. A council was accordingly held at Ghalcedonin 451. The Tome ofLeo was endorsed, and Dioscoruswas condemned and deposed. Shortly afterwards hewas banished to Gangra in Paphlagonia, where he diedin 454. The cases of Ibas and Theodoret presentedgreater difficulty. To complete the discomfiture ofDioscorus it seemed desirable to reinstate them, thoughas the leading Nestorians remaining within the empire,simple reinstatement was hardly practicable. Aftermuch heated discussion it was agreed to reinstate themon condition that they anathematized both Nestoriusand Eutyches, and accepted the Tome of Leo. Thisthey did, though with what feelings and mental reser-vations it would be interesting to know. Probablythey regarded themselves as followers of Theodorerather than of Nestorius, and accepted the only possibleway of escape from their unfortunate situation. Butit was common knowledge that they had not reallychanged their views.Thus Ibas was able to resume his see in 451. Butthe state of affairs at Edessa had greatly changed sincehe was acclaimed bishop in 436. There was nowquite a considerable section against him, led by fourof his own presbyters. They had caused trouble forhim even before the Robber Council of Ephesus, bymaking various trivial charges against him. Synodsat Antioch and Tyre had failed to substantiate thesecharges, but they had naturally lowered his prestige.The Nestorian party at Edessa was steadily declining,


45/235

42 TRANSITION TO PERSIAand after the death of Ibas in 457, it became increas-ingly difficult for Edessa to remain a centre of Nestor-ianism in an empire where Nestorianism was con-demned. Losing hold on church and city, it lingeredon in the theological school until 489, when the schoolwas closed and destroyed by order of the EmperorZeno, the Nestorian remnant fleeing into Persia. Thatwas the end of Nestorianism in the Roman Empire, itsfinal condemnation being delivered by the Council ofConstantinople, the fifth (Ecumenical Council, in 553,which condemned the person and writings of Theodoreof Mopsuestia, the real author of Nestorianism.But while Nestorianism was declining in the Roman

Empire, it was in the ascendant in Persia. Themajority of the Persian clergy had for many years beentrained at Edessa, so that Nestorian views werenaturally prevalent among them. There was also inPersia an ardent advocate ofNestorianism in the personofBarsumas. Barsumas had been a disciple and friendof Ibas in the days when Rabbulas was bishop ofEdessa and Ibas head of the theological school.Rabbulas had expelled him on account of his pro-nounced Nestorianism, and he had gone to Nisibis, justover the border into Persian territory. There he waswell received, became first bishop of Nisibis in 457, andfounded a theological school.As a theological opinion Nestorianism had thereforebeen long in evidence in Persia. But after the Councilof Chalcedon it assumed a new significance. ThePersian Government had opposed Christianity partlybecause it was the religion of their national rivals, the


46/235

PERSIAN HIERARCHY 43Romans. But now that Nestorianism had been con-demned and Nestorians were seeking refuge in Persia,there was no longer any danger that such a form ofChristianity would be a link with an alien power; onthe contrary, it would be politically wise to encourageNestorianism among Persian Christians, so as toalienate them from Christians in the Roman Empire.This was accordingly done, and King Peroz (457-484)gave up persecuting the Christians, except for a per-secution in 465. But as this was directed against thosewho wished to remain in communion with the Churchof the Roman Empire, it acted more as a stimulus toNestorianism than as a deterrent from Christianity.Indeed, it is said that Barsumas himself took an activepart in this persecution, telling Peroz that it would bebest for the Persian authorities if all Persian Christianswere made to accept Nestorianism. Consequentlythree factors were working in the same direction: theattitude of the Persian Government, the dominantpersonality of Barsumas, and the influx of Nestoriansfrom Edessa. It is therefore not surprising thatNestorianism and the Christian Church in Persia soonbecame practically synonymous.

Nevertheless, it was some time before the PersianChurch became formally Nestorian. This was becauseso much depended upon the attitude of the PersianPatriarch, the bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. Thisposition was held by Babowai (457-484), who does notappear to have favoured Nestorianism. His opposi-tion was probably due to jealousy of Barsumas and adesire to retain friendly relations with the Church in the


47/235

44 TRANSITION TO PERSIARoman Empire, rather than to theological convictions.But before considering the conflict of Babowai andBarsumas, it is desirablejo seehow the bishop ofSeleucia-Gtesiphon had come to count for so much in Persia.The Persian churches, separated from the greaterpart of Christendom both by national frontiers andby language, had almost inevitably come to regardthemselves as a unity, and had begun to look forleadership within their own country rather than infar away Antioch, in which Patriarchate they werereckoned. Other things being equal, leadership wouldnaturally be assumed by the bishop of the most im-portant see. Now Ctesiphon was at this time theprincipal place of residence of the Persian kings, andon the opposite (right) bank of the Tigris stood the stillolder city of Seleucia. These two cities 1 constitutedone bishopric, which accounts for the hyphened de-signation which is always used. Its bishop mighttherefore reasonably claim first place in the Persianepiscopate, and as far back as 315, Papa Bar Aggai,the then bishop of Seleucia-Gtesiphon, had endea-voured at a synod held at Seleucia to assert his primacyover the other Persian bishops. His claims were onlypartially admitted, and the question was not finallysettled until a synod held at Seleucia in 410, at the endof the episcopate of Isaac, bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphonfrom 399 to 410.2

1 They became increasingly unified, and the Arabs of the seventhcentury renamed them with a single name, al-Madam. The onename, however, means 'the (two) cities,' and so to some extent preservesthe fact that they were originally separate entities.

2 Isaac's date is thus given by Labourt, Kidd, and Fortescue. TheEncyclopedia Britannica, xxi. 722, gives 390-410.


48/235

PERSIAN HIERARCHY 45This synod was also notable for another reason, for

there the Persian bishops declared their adherence tothe decisions reached at the Council of Nicaea in 325,and subscribed to the Nicene Creed. They also laid itdown that there should only be one bishop to each see,that ordination of bishops should be by three otherbishops, and that Epiphany, Lent, Good Friday andEaster should be observed as elsewhere in the Church.These decisions are noteworthy, as the NestorianChurch of later centuries did not depart from thefindings of this synod, which can therefore be taken asthe measure of its agreement with catholicity andorthodoxy.As to the question of primacy, it was decided thatthe bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon should be accountedPrimate of the Persian Church, and that in recognitionof this pre-eminence he should be given the titleCatholicus. The exact meaning of this word is alittle obscure. It may have been borrowed fromRoman civil usage, where catholicus was a title ap-plied to diocesan1 ministers of finance; or it may havebeen adopted to indicate that his authority was'catholic' (Greek 'throughout the whole') in Persia.But in any case it is quite clear what place theyintended the Catholicus to occupy in the Hierarchy:he was to come between the Patriarch and theMetropolitans.

1 The word 'diocese,' now used almost exclusively as an ecclesiasticalterm, was originally the name of large divisions in the Roman Empire,such as the diocese of Pontus, the diocese of Thracia, the diocese ofDacia, etc. At the end of the fourth century the Western RomanEmpire was divided into six dioceses and the Eastern Roman Empireinto seven.


49/235

46 TRANSITION TO PERSIABy the fifth century the whole of the ChristianChurch was regarded as being comprised within four1

Patriarchates, which had been defined by the Councilof Constantinople in 381 as Rome, Constantinople,Alexandria, and Antioch, of which Rome was to bereckoned the first. Christendom was thus dividedadministratively under four Patriarchs, under whomagain were Metropolitans. The Metropolitan was theprimate among the bishops in his province, and eachbishop was responsible for his own diocese. Thuspatriarchates, provinces, and dioceses were respectivelycontrolled by patriarchs, metropolitans, 2 and bishops.It may be pointed out that these all represent degreesof standing among bishops, and not separate orders.Now the Persians wanted the bishopric of Seleucia-Ctesiphon to be ranked higher than the other metro-politans in Persia, and they also wanted all Persianbishops, ordinary bishops and metropolitans alike, toowe their allegiance to the patriarch 'of Antioch, notdirectly, but through the bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon.Obviously this could only be done by interposing adegree between metropolitan and patriarch, whichthey accordingly did by making the bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon Primate of Persia and Catholicus.This appointment was the more significant becauseKing Yazdegerd I (399-420) himself approved the

organization of the Persian Church on this basis, andissued a firman giving recognition to the Catholicus as

1 Jerusalem was not made a Patriarchate until a little later, at theCouncil of Ghalcedon, 45 1 .2Later, metropolitans in the West were usually styled archbishops.The terms are practically synonymous.


50/235

PERSIAN HIERARCHY 47head of the Persian Christians. They thus became asection of the population with a definite standing, re-sponsible for their own good order, and answerable tothe authorities through the Gatholicus, who was theiraccredited link with the civil power. In this way hebecame in a sense their civil as well as religious head.The only drawback was that in future the Gatholicushad to be approved by the King of Persia, which inpractice sometimes meant that the office could only befilled by his nominee.

Nevertheless, Yazdegerd was a tolerant monarchto whom the Persian Christians owed a great deal, ashe put an end to the Magian1 idea that Christians wereheretics necessarily worthy of death, and gave them anapproved status. Such communities within the State,answerable through their own head to the civil authori-ties, have not been uncommon in the East, and manydifferent terms have been used to describe them, suchas rayah (raiyah, raiyyah), dhimmi (dimmi), melet(millah, millet). To describe this condition we shallconsistently use the word melet, though strictly speakingdifferent terms should be used according to the exactcondition and period. Although Yazdegerd put anend to the Magian tendency to persecute Christians onprinciple, there were quite a number of later persecu-tions under the Sassanids2 ; but there was always someostensible excuse for them, and none was so fierce orprolonged as that under Shapur II. Thus from 410

1 For a note on the Magians, see p. 65.2 For a list of the Sassanid Kings, and indications of their attitudetoward Christianity, see pp. Qi-8z.


51/235

48 TRANSITION TO PERSIAthe Persian Church had a recognized position in thePersian state, and a Hierarch acknowledged by thePersian King. From 410, therefore, the Catholicusis to be reckoned the religious and to some extent thecivil head of the Christians in Persia. These hap-penings manifestly went far toward developing the ideaof complete religious autonomy. Isaac was con-siderably helped at this synod, and in the negotiationswith Yazdegerd, by Marutha, bishop of Maiperkat.The next step was taken at the synod ofMarkabta in424, during the catholicate ofDadyeshu (42 1-456) . Atthis synod it was declared that the bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon should be the sole head of the PersianChurch, and that no ecclesiastical authority should beacknowledged as above him. In particular, it was laiddown that 'Easterns shall not complain of theirpatriarch to the western patriarchs: every case thatcannot be settled by him shall await the tribunal ofChrist.5 This is the first time that the bishop ofSeleucia-Ctesiphon is referred to as patriarch, and,according to the Roman Catholic point of view, 1 thisdeclaration placed the Persian Church definitely in astate of schism. It was not heretical, because nomatters of doctrine were involved as yet. That issuewas to arise later.But the act of elevating their Catholicus to a Patri-

arch was of inescapable significance. Until then,2 noone had assumed the title unless it had been conferred

1 Fortescue, Lesser Eastern Churches, p. 51.2 Later, particularly in the West, the title was more loosely used, andwas assumed by many metropolitans without its earlier significance.


52/235

BARSUMAS 49uponhim by an oecumenical council, so thathis elevationbore the sign of the whole Church's approval. More-over, the delimitation of the area of a new patriarchatewas a matter for careful adjustment, for it was boundto involve, to some extent, taking from other patri-archates, as happened when Jerusalem became apatriarchate. But the Persians boldly took mattersinto their own hands and, without consulting any butthemselves, broke off a great area of the patriarchateof Antioch and constituted it the patriarchate ofSeleucia-Ctesiphon. The patriarch is sometimes alsoreferred to as Patriarch of the East, or of Babylon.Curiously enough, Antioch does not seem to havemade any protest. Thus from 424 the Persian Churchwas completely separated from the rest of Christendom,not doctrinally, but administratively. Its supremehead was the Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, whoclaimed equality ofrank with the other four patriarchs,but by whom he was in no way recognized.

Such, therefore, was the state of affairs when Bar-sumas was trying to make the Persian Church definitelyNestorian. He could not possibly succeed unless hewon over the patriarch, or unless he became patriarchhimself. Practically speaking, Nestorian theology haddominated Persia for over half a century, but whileBabowai remained patriarch it would not be formallyendorsed.In 484 Barsumas nearly succeeded in becoming

patriarch. In that year Babowai was caught engagedin treasonable correspondence with the Roman Em-peror Zeno. He was charged with writing that cGod


53/235

5O TRANSITION TO PERSIAhas delivered us up to an impious sovereign.' He mayhave done so, as he disliked King Peroz because Perozfavoured Barsumas, and also because he had sufferedtwo years' imprisonment by Peroz on the ground thathe was an apostate from Zoroastrianism. On the otherhand, it may be that Barsumas was himself partlyresponsible for the charge being formulated. 1 In anycase, the letter cost Babowai his life, and he was hangedby his fingers until he died. Barsumas now seizedhis opportunity, and called a synod to meet at BethLapat (Jundishapur). 2 This synod exalted 'Theodorethe Interpreter' (Theodore of Mopsuestia) as the fountof true doctrine, and condemned the teaching ofthe Church in the Roman Empire. The synod wastherefore absolutely Nestorian in character, and if itsdecisions had stood, 484 could be given as the definitedate when the Persian Church became officiallyNestorian. But, as will soon be seen, the power of thissynod was only transient. In addition to doctrinalpronouncements, the synod of Beth Lapat discounten-anced laws of celibacy. It declared marriage lawfulfor all, including priests and bishops. Barsumas gavea practical lead by marrying a nun.Just as Barsumas, through this synod, seemed to have

gained a decided ascendancy, King Peroz died. Thenew King, Balash (484-488), who exercised his rightof appointing the new patriarch, passed over Barsumas

1 Labourt, Le Christianisme dans I'empire perse, p. 142.2 There is some uncertainty as to whether this synod was convenedshortly before or shortly after the death of Babowai. In either case thedate was probably 484, though Eduard Meyer gives 483 (EncyclopediaBritannica, xvii. 585).


54/235

AGAGIUS 51and appointed Acacius (485-496). Barsumas indig-nantly refused to acknowledge him. But Acacius hadboth religious and civil authority on his side, and at asynod held at Beth Adrai in 485, Barsumas had tosubmit. This synod declared that everything done atBeth Lapat was void, and the Beth Lapat synod of 484'has consequently no place in the canons of the PersianChurch. Nevertheless, at the synod at Beth Adrai aconfession was drawn up which definitely savoured ofNestorianism, and the abolition of celibacy was main-tained. Acacius held another synod the following year(486) at Seleucia, where monophysitism was specificallycondemned and the abolition of celibacy was re-affirmed. Although the condemnation of monophysi-tism ranked the Persians in that particular with thechurches of the West, it does not really indicate theslightest change of attitude, for Nestorianism liesequally far from Western orthodoxy in the exactlyopposite direction; so the condemnation of mono-physitism by Nestorians is of no significance: it isexactly what would be expected.But Acacius was evidently more a man of policy than

of principle, for when a year or two later he was senton an embassy to Constantinople he declared that hewas not a Nestorian, had only intended to condemnmonophysitism, and was willing to excommunicateBarsumas. His readiness to implement this willingnessby action was not, however, put to the test, for on hisreturn from Constantinople Barsumas was dead,murdered by monks, according to Barhebraeus, 1 with1


55/235

52 TRANSITION TO PERSIAthe keys of their cells. This was about 493. Acaciusdid not survive much longer, dying in 496.He was succeeded by Babai (497-502). Soon after

his accession Babai held two synods, in 498 and 499, atwhich the moderate policy of Acacius was abandonedand a return was made to the attitude of the synodconvened by Barsumas at Beth Lapat in 484. Babaifrankly accepted Nestorian theology, which thusbecame the official doctrine of the Persian Church; hewent further than Barsumas and Acacius in the matterof the abolition of celibacy, allowing not only allbishops and priests to marry, but permitting re-marriage in the event ofa wife's death; and he reassertedthe right of the bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon to thetitle Patriarch of the East, declaring himself inde-pendent in every way of the churches of the RomanEmpire and the rest of Christendom generally.The position taken by Babai is perfectly unam-biguous, and from his accession the Persian Church isnot only definitely schismatical but professedly here-tical. 1 From 497 we may therefore correctly refer toit as the Nestorian Church, and to its head as theNestorian Patriarch. As will be seen shortly, theNestorian Church extended far beyond the limits ofthe Persian Empire, and at one period the NestorianPatriarch had a bigger area under his spiritualjurisdiction than any other Christian hierarch.

1 For the connotation of these terms see p. 15.


56/235

CHAPTER IIITHE NESTORIAN CHURCH IN THE TIME

OF BABAI497-502

ALTHOUGH Babai must have been a man of consider-able practical ability to have been able to establish thePersian Church on such a clearly defined basis, he wasa man of little culture, possibly unable even to read.1He was, therefore, hardly competent to deal withtheological matters except in the most general way.This deficiency, however, was remedied by Narses.Narses was reckoned a great authority by the Nes-torians, and did much toward defining their theologicalpositions at the critical time when they were settingout into doctrinal as well as administrative isolation.He had been a friend of Barsumas, and had beenassociated with him in the work of the school atNisibis, eventually becoming its president. Thatoffice he retained till his death in 507.

His teaching was quite definitely Nestorian, as isevidenced by his extant poems and sermons. He leftno doubt as to the fount of Nestorian theology, describ-ing Diodorus, Theodore, and Nestorius as the 'Three

1 Fortescue, Lesser Eastern Churches, p. 82.


57/235

54 TIME OF BABAIDoctors.' He vigorously defended the reputation ofNestorius, and ascribed his downfall to the briberyresorted to by his enemies, notably Cyril. He was,naturally, anti-monophysite, and declared Christ tohave been incarnate in 'two natures, two persons, andone presence.' 1 This has been the Nestorian formulaever since, and crystallizes their heresy. Narses was sohighly esteemed by the Nestorians that they styledhim the 'Harp of the Holy Ghost.' The Jacobites,2however, refer to him as Narses the Leper.

It may now be desirable to see what was the extentofthe Nestorian Patriarch's jurisdiction. It has alreadybeen stated that the patriarchate of the East wasformed by the action of the Persian bishops at thesynod ofMarkabta in 424, when they declared Seleucia-Ctesiphon no longer merely a catholicate but apatriarchate, and thus detached from the patriarchateof Antioch all those churches whose linkage withAntioch had been through the Catholicus of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. This involved nearly every church in the

1 In the Syriac, 'two kyane, two knume, one parsufa,' which corre-sponds with the Greek ' Suo qniaeis, S\io vnroardocis, ev -rrpoacoirov.' Butit seems safe to assume that parsufa means no more than the appearanceofunity presented externally by the fact ofJesus Christ having one body,one voice in a word, one physical presence, a mere mask (a frequentmeaning of irpoacoirov) of unification to cover the two personalities;and that knuma corresponds with uirdcrraais in the sense of the personas an individuality, not in the sense of the nature of the person. Thematter is not a simple one, and is carefully discussed by Bethune-Baker,Nestorius and his Teaching, pp. 212-232, or more shortly by Fortescue,op. cit., pp. 67-69, 84-85.2 A sect representing monophysitism in the East. They originatedwith Jacob Baradai in the sixth century, and with headquarters atAntioch had a number of churches in Syria and Persia. They werenever so widely diffused as the Nestorians, and are represented to-day


58/235

CHURCHES IN PERSIA 55continent of Asia with the exception of those withinthe boundaries of the Roman Empire. Whether someof the more remote churches realized that happeningsat Seleucia-Ctesiphon during the fifth century hadinvolved them in schism and heresy is open to question;but as they continued to look to the Patriarch ofSeleucia-Ctesiphon as their spiritual head, from 497all such churches must be reckoned as Nestorianchurches.The ways in which Christianity had reached these

places fall outside the scope of the present work, butit is necessary to indicate the general limits of the areacovered, and to give the names of the principal sees.This may most conveniently be done under broadgeographical headings.

(i) The Persian Empire.By far the greater number of the churches in the

Nestorian patriarchate were situated in and near thevalleys ofthe Tigris and Euphrates, that is, inthe westernpart ofthe Persian Empire. In this region the churcheswere well organized, the Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon having under him a number of metro-politans, who supervised the bishops of the towns andvillages in their provinces. If the plan followed in theRoman Empire had been adopted, the provinces ofthe metropolitans would have corresponded with thesecular provinces. This, however, does not appear tohave been the case, nor did the provinces of the metro-politans by any means cover the whole area of thepatriarchate; for in addition to the metropolitan


59/235

56 TIME OF BABAIprovinces there were many bishoprics independent olany metropolitan, whose immediate superior was thepatriarch himself.It is not an easy matter to discover the location andgrouping of the various bishoprics. The facts havemostly to be gathered from the material collected byAssemani and Le Quien, 1 which is often difficult tointerpret. This is because of the peculiar forms inwhich many of the names occur, making it difficultto recognize them, and because the same place some-times appears again under a different name. Again,the sites of some of the obscurer places are difficult orimpossible to identify. It is also often uncertain whenthe status of metropolitan was assumed by certainbishops; and when the status was assumed, it seems 'sometimes to have been more as a title of dignity thanas indicative of jurisdiction, because some of thosestyled metropolitan do not appear to have had anybishops under them. Consequently, those who haveendeavoured to compile lists of bishoprics seldom agree,and authorities like Wiltsch, Sachau and Kidd do noteven agree as to the number of metropolitans at agiven period. The following list, therefore, must betaken as

provisional, being an attempt to interpret thedata as carefully as possible. Considerations of spacepreclude detailed reasons for the conclusions reached.At the time of Babai there were seven metropolitanprovinces within the Persian Empire. It will readilybe seen from the map on p. 58 that with the exceptionof Merv all these were in the Tigris-Euphrates area.


60/235

CHURCHES IN PERSIA 57The following is a list of these metropolitan provinces

together with their known dependent bishoprics :

Seat of the Patriarch: Seleucia-Ctesiphon.(1) Province of Patriarchalis. Metropolitan at

Kaskar, a bishop at Hira.(2) Province of Nisibis. Metropolitan at Nisibis,

a bishop at Bakerda.(3) Province of Teredon. Metropolitan at Basrah,a bishop probably at Destesana, and a church,

if not a bishopric, at Nahar-al-Marah.(4) Province of Adiabene. Metropolitan at Erbil,

bishops at Honita and Maalta.(5)

Province of Garamaea. Metropolitan at Karkha,bishops at Sciaarchadata and Dakuka.(6) Province of Khurasan. Metropolitan at Merv.(7) Province of Atropatene. Metropolitan at Taur-

isium.

Ofthe bishoprics owning direct allegiance to Seleucia-Ctesiphon, one important group was in the province ofSusiana, and comprised the four bishoprics of Jundi-shapur, Susa, Ahwaz and Suster. Shortly afterwards(522) this group constituted a metropolitan province,with the bishop of Jundishapur as metropolitan.Three other bishoprics which a little later becamecentres of metropolitan provinces were Rawardshir,Rai and Herat. Other bishoprics not yet undermetropolitans included Maiperkat, Nineveh, Singara,Drangerda, Ispahan and Nishapur. There was alsoa bishop for the province of Segestan, south of Herat.


61/235

TIME OF BABAI


62/235

ARABIA 59In addition to these bishoprics there were a few

monasteries (see pp. 73-74), and there were clergyschools at Seleucia, Dorkena and Erbil, as well as thefamous one at Nisibis. Christianity was thereforewidely diffused in Persia, being strongest in the westernpart.

(ii) Arabia.Outside the Persian Empire the churches in the

patriarchate were fewer and weaker, and our informa-tion about them is more scanty and uncertain. But itis generally agreed that Christianity had gainedentrance to Arabia by this time. One of the mostimportant modes of entrance had been by emigrationof Christians from Persia in times of persecution,particularly during the latter part of the reign ofShapur II (310-379), who severely persecuted thePersian Church from about 339 onwards. Theseemigrants had mostly gone either by land through thesemi-independent Arab state of Hira, or across thePersian Gulf to the coast of Oman, and thence south-westward to Hadramaut, Yaman, and Najran.By the fifth century there were, therefore, many

Christians in the southern halfofthe Arabian peninsula.There was, as already noted, a bishop at Hira under theMetropolitan of Kaskar, and there were bishops at

Ij'Kufa, Beth Raman, Perath Messenes, Baith Katraye,and Najran. There were churches, and thereforeprobably bishops also, at Sana, Aden, and Dhafar;and there were monasteries and schools at Mathota


63/235

6o TIME OF BABAIbecome Christian, including the Hamyar, 1 Ghassan,Rabia, Taglib, Bahra, Tonuch, part of the tribes ofTay and Kodaa, some tribes in the Nejd, the BeniHarith of Najran, and some other tribes betweenKufa and Medina.Although the evidence in some of these cases may be

slender, and it is a matter of opinion how much of itwe accept, 2 it is nevertheless sufficiently certain thatthe Christian element in Arabia was considerable; andbecause many of them were emigrants from Persia ordescendants of such emigrants, and because politicaland geographical considerations linked them morenaturally with Persia than with the Roman Empire,these Christians looked to the patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon as their spiritual head. By virtue of thatallegiance, therefore, these Arabian Christians must bereckoned in the Nestorian Church from 497 onwards.(iii) India.The extent of Christianity in India at the beginningof the sixth century is rather difficult to determine.

Although some modern writers are to be found whothink even St. Thomas the Apostle may have visitedIndia, most ancient references must be received withcaution, not only because the writers may have beenquoting on doubtful evidence, but also because the

1 The Book of the Himyarites, Syriac fragments collected and translatedby Axel Moberg in 1934, has gone far towards proving that Chris-tianity was more widely diffused in south Arabia than had formerly beensupposed.2 Stewart, for example, accepts most of it; Assemani, Sale, andZwemer much of it; and Harnack very little. For much of the evidencesee Gheikho, Le Christianisme en Arable avant I'lslam.


64/235

TURKESTAN 6lname India was very loosely used, being sometimesapplied even to Arabia Felix or Ethiopia. It is alsopossible that after some centuries a confusion arosebetween St. Thomas the Apostle and Thomas ofJerusalem (Thomas Cannaneo), who quite probablyvisited south-west India in the fourth century. Thepersistent Thomas tradition in India may, therefore, bea genuine one, but its basis ofreality may be the work ofThomas ofJerusalem rather than that of the Apostle.But it is safe to say that there were certainly some

Christian communities in India at this time, and anindication of their locations may be gathered from thewritings1 of Gosmas Indicopleustes, who wrote about530. He says there were bishops at Galliana (nearBombay), in Male (Malabar), in the island of Sielediva(Ceylon), and in the island of Taprobana in the IndianOcean; and that there were Christians in Pegu, theGanges valley, Cochin China, Siam, and Tonquin.He definitely states that they were ecclesiasticallydependent upon Persia, so what Christians there mayhave been in these regions must be reckoned as Nes-torians from the sixth century.(iv) Turkestan.*

Persian Christian missionaries had begun to makeconverts among the Ephthalite Huns and the Turks in

1 Topographia Christiana.2 A convenient name for a region of Central Asia extending approxi-mately from the Caspian Sea to Lake Baikal. Historically the areato which the name has been applied has varied considerably. Thatportion between the rivers Oxus and Jaxartes is often referred to asTransoxiana, and contains the important towns of Samarqand andBukhara.


65/235

62 TIME OF BABAIthe neighbourhood ofthe Oxus, but no great impressionhad been made so early as 497. In the following year,however, when King Kavadh I had to flee temporarilyfrom Persia into Turkestan because of the success ofthe usurper Djamasp, he was accompanied on hisjourney by the bishop of Arran, 1 together with fourpresbyters and two laymen, who were going on amission into the same region. 2 This mission of theyear 498 was very successful, and many Turks becameChristians. The presbyters continued their work forseven years, but the laymen remained until 530.

In addition to the work of missionaries, Christianinfluence was making its way into the same regionthrough the agency of Christian doctors, scribes, andartisans, who were readily able to find employmentamong a people of a lower culture.(v) China.

It is doubtful whether there were any Christiancommunities in China so early as A.D. 500. Christianinfluences, perhaps mainly through Gnostic andManichasan channels, had already affected Chinesethought to some small extent, 3 and there may havebeen sporadic missionary effort even so early as A.D.300.* But the founding of Christian churches did not

1 Possibly the region of that name immediately north of Atropateneand a little to the west of the Caspian Sea. But it may be doubtedwhether there were bishops of Arran so early as this. Quite possiblyArran should here be taien as one of the many variants of Herat(seep. 224).2 J\Iingana3 Bulkfin ofthe John Rylands Library, ix. 303.3 See A. Lloyd's article. 'Gnosticism in Japan,

5 in The East and the.West, April 1910.4


66/235

DISTRIBUTIONtake place, at least on any effective scale, till theNestorian missionary expansion of the seventh andeighth centuries.

This survey of non-Roman Asiatic Christianity atthe end of the fifth century shows that Babai hadassumed the spiritual headship of churches scatteredover an area stretching from Arabia in the west toIndia in the east. The map on p. 58 shows notonly their distribution, but indicates that their realstrength was in the Tigris-Euphrates area. Elsewherethey were sparser, and our knowledge of them iscorrespondingly less sure. Nevertheless, these churchescertainly comprised a considerable body of Christians,whose future history is that of the Nestorian Church.


67/235

6o TIME OF BABAIbecome Christian, including the Hamyar, 1 Ghassan,Rabia, Taglib, Bahra, Tonuch, part of the tribes ofTay and Kodaa, some tribes in the Nejd, the BeniHarith of Najran, and some other tribes betweenKufa and Medina.Although the evidence in some of these cases may be

slender, and it is a matter of opinion how much of itwe accept, 2 it is nevertheless sufficiently certain thatthe Christian element in Arabia was considerable; andbecause many of them were emigrants from Persia ordescendants of such emigrants, and because politicaland geographical considerations linked them morenaturally with Persia than with the Roman Empire,these Christians looked to the patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon as their spiritual head. By virtue of thatallegiance, therefore, these Arabian Christians must bereckoned in the Nestorian Church from 497 onwards.(iii) India.

The extent of Christianity in India at the beginningof the sixth century is rather difficult to determine.Although some -modern writers are to be found whothink even St. Thomas the Apostle may have visitedIndia, most ancient references must be received withcaution, not only because the writers may have beenquoting on doubtful evidence, but also because the

1 The Book of the Himyarites, Syriac fragments collected and translatedby Axel Moberg in 1934, has gone far towards proving that Chris-tianity was more widely diffused in south Arabia than had formerly beensupposed.2 Stewart, for example, accepts most of it; Assemani, Sale, andZwemer much of it; and Harnack very little. For much of the evidencesee Cheikho, Le Christianisme en Arable avant VIslam.


68/235

TURKESTAN 6lname India was very loosely used, being sometimesapplied even to Arabia Felix or Ethiopia. It is alsopossible that after some centuries a confusion arosebetween St. Thomas the Apostle and Thomas ofJerusalem (Thomas Gannaneo), who quite probablyvisited south-west India. in the fourth century. Thepersistent Thomas tradition in India may, therefore, bea genuine one, but its basis ofreality may be the work ofThomas of Jerusalem rather than that of the Apostle.But it is safe to say that there were certainly some

Christian communities in India at this time, and anindication of their locations may be gathered from thewritings 1 of Gosmas Indicopleustes, who wrote about530. He says there were bishops at Galliana (nearBombay), in Male (Malabar), in the island of Sielediva(Ceylon), and in the island ofTaprobana in the IndianOcean; and that there were Christians in Pegu, theGanges valley, Cochin China, Siam, and Tonquin.He definitely states that they were ecclesiasticallydependent upon Persia, so what Christians there mayhave been in these regions must be reckoned as Nes-torians from the sixth century.(iv) Turkestan.*

Persian Christian missionaries had begun to makeconverts among the Ephthalite Huns and the Turks in

1 Topographic Christiana.2 A convenient name for a region of Central Asia extending approxi-mately from the Caspian Sea to Lake Baikal. Historically the areato which the name has been applied has varied considerably. Thatportion between the rivers Oxus and Jaxartes is often referred to asTransoxiana, and contains the important towns of Samarqand andBukhara.


69/235

62 TIME OF BABAIthe neighbourhood ofthe Oxus, but no great impressionhad been made so early as 497. In the following year,however, when King Kavadh I had to flee temporarilyfrom Persia into Turkestan because of the success ofthe usurper Djamasp, he was accompanied on hisjourney by the bishop of Arran, 1 together with fourpresbyters and two laymen, who were going on amission into the same region. 2 This mission of theyear 498 was very successful, and many Turks becameChristians. The presbyters continued their work forseven years, but the laymen remained until 530.

In addition to the work of missionaries, Christianinfluence was making its way into the same regionthrough the agency of Christian doctors, scribes, andartisans, who were readily able to find employmentamong a people of a lower culture.(v) China.

It is doubtful whether there were any Christiancommunities in China so early as A.D. 500. Christianinfluences, perhaps mainly through Gnostic andManichaean channels, had already affected Chinesethought to some small extent, 3 and there may havebeen sporadic missionary effort even so early as A.D.300.* But the founding of Christian churches did not

1 Possibly the region of that name immediately north of Atropateneand a little to the west of the Caspian Sea. But it may be doubtedwhether there were bishops of Arran so early as this. Quite possiblyArran should here be taken as one of the many variants of Herat(see p. 224).2 Mingana, Bulletin ofth

history of nestorian christianity

Documents