Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 14.djvu/750

 THOMAS

686

THOMAS

the first Vicar Apostolic of Trichur to the church of Parur in 18SS, on enquiring after the tomb of the archbishop, he was told that no tomb of his was known to exist there, but after careful search had been made the tombstone, with its Malayalam in- scription in ancient Tamil characters, was found and is now affixed to the inner wall of the church. The loss of all knowledge of the tombstone was caused by the sacking and burning of this church with many others by the soldiers of Tippoo Sultan on liis second invasion of the coast. Paulinas a Sancto Bartho- loraao, who had visited the church in 1785 and had taken a transcript of the inscription at the time, of which he gives a Latin translation in his "India Christ. Orient.", p. 64, did not read the name Roz on the stone, however the name is there in a flaw of the stone and has been read on rediscovery.

Father Estevao de Brito, also a Jesuit, was desig- nated successor, and was consecrated by the Arch- bishop of Goa in the Church of Bom Jesus, Goa, on 29 Sept., 1(324, and left Goa for his diocese on 4 Nov. He died on 2 Dec, 1641, having governed the see for over seventeen years. The third of the series was Francisco Garcia, of the same society. He was con- secrated Bishop of Ascalon on 1 Nov., 1637, with right of succession by the Archbishop of Goa in the Jesuit Church of Bom Jesus, Goa, and succeeded to the See of Cranganore in 1641. Under this prelate a frightful schism broke out (1653) and his entire flock, with all his clergy and churches, withdrew from his allegiance. Out of the entire body of 200,000 SjTian Christians only some 400 individuals remained faith- ful. This misfortune has by most writers been at- tributed to Garcia's want of tact, obstinacy, and sar- castic disposition: as to the latter defect there is one instance, and that at the last opportimity for recon- ciUation, which fell through owing to his harsh treat- ment of the delegates sent to him by his revolted flock. But he was not responsible for the schism. This had been hatched many years previously during the lifetime of his predecessor de Brito, secretly and un- known to him. Here the dates only of documents can be quoted. On 1 Jan., 1628 (see German, p. 440) the Archdeacon George wrote a letter to the papal nuncio at Lisbon complaining that no answer was given to a letter sent some twenty years earlier regarding the spiritual wants of this Christian people. In 1630 Rome was informed of these complaints the substance of which was that Jesuits only controlled these Christians, that they were unsuited, and had controlled them for over forty years, and they wanted other religious orders to be sent. The Sacred Con- gregation sent instructions that other orders should be admitted into the diocese.

Paulinas (op. cit., pp. 70 sq.) adduces further evi- dence of the trickery and treachery of Archdeacon George. In 1632 a meeting was convened by him at RapoUn consisting of clergy and laity, when a letter of complaint was sent to the King of Portugal against the Jesuit Fathers; these very same complaints formed the heads of their grievances in 1653, when open schism was proclaimed to secure independence and oust the Jesuits. The plot had been hatched for a good number of years; it was begun by Archdeacon George (d. 1637) who was succeeded in office by a rela- tive, another Thomas de Campo (Thoma Parambil) who in 1653 headed the revolt. After the schism had broken out the intruder Ahatalla, a Mesopotamian prelate, was deported by the Portuguese, who took him by ship off Cochin and there lay at anchor. The Christians, coming to know of the fact, threat- ened to storm the fort, which the governor h.ad to man with his soldiers, while Uw. ship sailed away to (ioa (luring the night. The ii'volli-d seeing (heir last at- tempt to secure a Bagchul pn4ale fra.strated. leadera and iieople took a soleiiui \w that they would never again submit to Archbishop Garcia. Finding them-

selves in this position they thought, of calling to their aid the Carmelite Fathers who had visited Malabar but were then at Goa. When Alexander VII came to know the calamity which had befallen the Syrian community, he sent out (1656) the Carmelites, Fathers Jose de Sebastiani and Vincente of St. Cath- erine, to work for the return to unity and resubmission to their archbishop of this revolted church. Later other Carmelite Fathers joined in the good work. Within a year of their arrival (1657) the CarmeUtes had succeeded in reconciling forty-four churches. Although Archdeacon George had remained obdurate, a relative of his, Chandj' Perambil (Alexander de Campo), headed the return movement, but they would have nothing to do with Archbishop Garcia.

XV. Under these circumstances Father Jose de Sebastiani decided to return to Rome and inform the pope of the real difficulty which stood in the way of permanent reconciliation. The pope on learning the state of the case had Father Jose consecrated and ap- pointed him Commissary Apostolic for Malabar, with power to consecrate two other bishops, naming them vicars Apostolic. Provided with these powers he re- turned to Malabar in 1661 and took up his work. By this time Archbishop Garcia had been removed from the scene by death. Between 1661 and 1662 the Car- melite Friars under Bishop Jose had reclaimed the large number of eighty-four churches, leaving to the leader of the revolt, the aforesaid Archdeacon Thomas, only thirty-two churches. Both these figures are of great importance for the subsequent history of the Malabar Syrians. The eighty-four churches and their congregations were the body from which all the Romo- Syrians have descended, while the other thirty-two represent the nucleus whence the Jacobites and their subdivisions. Reformed Syrians, etc., have originated. In .lanuary, 1663, the political situation regarding the.se Christians was entirely changed. The Dutch had arrived on the coast and had captured Cochin. The Portuguese power fell. The new mast el's ex- pelled not only all the Portuguese clergy but also forced Bishop Jose and his religious to leave the coun- try. In this predicament the bishop selected and con- secrated the native priest Chandy Perambil (Alex- ander de Cam]io) and made him a vicar Apostohc over the flock he was forced to leave.

Before departing, however, he handed to the Dutch Government of Cochin a list of the eighty-four churches that were under his control and commended Bishop Chandy and the Christians of those churches to his protection. This the governor undertook to fulfil. Though the Dutch did not trouble themselves about the Syrian Christians, yet they would not per- mit any Jesuit or Portuguese prelate to reside in Mala- bar, although simultaneously with Bishop Jose de Seljastiani the other Carmelite missionaries had also to depart. However, they were not absent long, for. eventually they returned by ones and twos and were not molested. Later, in 1673, they established them- selves at Verapoly and built a church there, having obtained the land rent-free from the Rajah of Cochin; it is yet the headquarters of the Carmelites in Mala- bar. One of the Carmelite Fathers named Matthew even came into friendly relations with the Dvitch Governor van Rheede, and aided him in compiling his voluminous work on local botany known as "Hortus Malabaricus". The Carmelites working among the Svrians under Bishop Chandv remained ot\ good terms with him; the bishop died in 1676. Raphael, a priest of the Cochin diocese, was selected to succeed the for- mer, but he turned out a failure and died in 1695. The year following, Father Peter-Paid, a Carmelite, Wiis created titular .\rchbishop of .\ncyra, and was appointed vicar .\postolie for Malabar. With his ar- rival in U)78 there was a considerable irii)>roviMiiiil in the relations between the Dutch Govcrniiient and the Carmelite Fathers. The Archbishop Peter-Paul waa