Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 15.djvu/168

 UNION

138

UNION

och and then banished to the Greater Oasis in Upper Egypt, his personal influence over his disciples ceased. But his doctrine was undoubtedly derived from his former master, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and, as Theodore's memory was cherished as that of the greatest theological light of Syria, the condemned doctrine found many friends in the Eastern Patri- archate, and was taken up with special zeal at Edessa. From thence it spread to the neighbouring kingdom of Persia, where it was welcomed and protected by the Persian king as tending to emancipate his Christian subjects from Byzantine influence. Shortly after- wards the prevailing sentiment at Antioch became Monophysite, and the Nestorians of the patriarchate had to take refuge in Persia, with the result that the subsequent development of the heresy had its centre of propagation in the Persian town of Seleucia- Ctesiphon, on the Tigris, where was its metropolitan see. These Nestorians had a fine missionary spirit, and evangelized many countries in the Far East, some even reaching China, and others founding those Christian communities on the Malabar Coast of India called the Thomas Christians, or Christians of St. Thomas. This Nestorian Church reached its highest pitch of prosperity in the eleventh century, but the Mongol invasion in the thirteenth and fom'teenth centuries involved its adherents in ruin, and the great mass of their posterity became absorbed in the general Mohammedan population. They are now repre- sented by a small body, who dwell on the borders of Lake Urumiyah in Kurdistan and in the neighbour- ing highlands. They are not a very civilized race and probably know httle of the doctrine which was the original cause of their secession, or know it only as the patriotic watchword of their race. A still smaller body of Uniats of the same spiritual ancestry and the same liturgical rite are called Chaldees and live in the Euphrates and Tigris valley. In 1S70 their catholicos seceded on a purely personal matter, and induced his people to refuse acceptance of the Vatican decrees. They returned to unity seven years later, but the episode seems to show that their faith is not very firm.

C. Monophysitism. — The Monophysite schism had still more serious consequences. Its distinctive doe- trine is associated with the name of Eutyches, former archimandrite of a monastery near Constantinople, and Dioscorus, the nephew of St. Cyril and his suc- cessor in the patriarchal See of Alexandria. This doctrine, which was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, contrasted with Nestorianism by running to the opposite extreme. It maintained that in Christ there is not only a single personality, but also only a single nature. "Of two natures but not in two natures" was its phrase; for the Monophysites were zealous upholders of the decrees of Ephesus, and affirmed that Mary was the Theo tokos, from whom her Son received a perfect human nature; but they maintained that the effect of the union was that the Divine nature absorbed the human so that there were no longer two natures, but one only; anything short of that seemed to them to dissolve the essential unity of Christ's person. At Ephesus the two theolo- gians mentioned had stood by the side of St. CjtH and had fought hard for the condemnation of Nestorian- ism just on this ground, that it amounted to a denial of the unity of Christ ; and now it seemed to them that his doctrine, which had triumphed so splendidly at Ephesus, had been condemned at Chalcedon. Nor can it be denied that some unguarded expressions used by St. Cyril, though not so intended by him, were susceptible of a Monophysite interpretation. Besides Eutyches and Dioscorus, some of those who had signed the decrees of the new council felt that St. CjtII's expressions were affected by its decisions, and they returned home dissatisfied.

But here, too, it was chiefly racial feeling which,

by intensifying the crisis, precipitated a far-reaching schism. Although heUenized on the surface by their incorporation first in the Macedonian Empire and then in the Roman, the populations of Egypt and Syria were racially distinct from the Byzantines who governed them and the Greek colonists who had settled among them. Hence their attitude towards the dominant race was one of dislike and resentment, and they welcomed the opportunity which enabled them to assert in some measure their national dis- tinctness. Accordingly, when the Egj-ptians were assured that their great hero St. CjtO had been out- raged by a condemnation of his doctrine, they rallied round Timothy jElurus, the usui'ping successor of Dioscorus, and embraced his doctrine. The Greek colonists of course took the orthodox side, or rather took the side of the Court, just as it happened to be at the time, whether orthodox or Monothelite, according to the personal policy of the successive emperors; but from the time of Chalcedon the great mass of the Christian population of Eg\-pt became Monophysite and was lost to the unity of the Church. Two cen- turies later the Mohammedan invasion came both to emphasize and to enfeeble this extensive schism. During the interval, though the people were set against orthodoxy, the imperial power could do much to enforce it, but when the Mohammedans came the whole influence of the cahphs was used to confirm the schism — that is, in those whom they could not suc- ceed in gaining over to the religion of Islam. In the Patriarchate of Antioch and the smaller Patriarchate of Jerusalem events pursued a corresponding course. The Christians of S>Tian race were predisposed to take up with Monophysitisra just because their Byzantine rulers were on the side of orthodo.xy, and so fell away into a schism which, although from time to time checked or modified by the action of the Court as long as Byzantium retained its sovereignty over those parts, settled down into a permanent separation, when the Mohammedans had obtained possession of the country, besides losing vast numbers of its adherents by perversions to Mohammedanism.

The Christians of the present day who represent the former populations of the three splendid Patri- archates of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem are few in number, and fall into five classes. First there are the schismatic Copts in Eg>'pt, descendants of the native Egyptians, whose numbers are estimated at about 150,000. Secondly the Abyssinians. These were in early days converted from Alexandria, and BO in due course passed into schism along •nath it. They form the great mass of the inhabitants of Abys- sinia, about three million and a half, and have kept their faith well, but are very ignorant of its teaching and duties. Thirdly, the Jacobites of SjTia, who bear the same relation to the ancient SjTians as the Copta to the ancient Egyptians, and are called Jacobites after Jacob Barradai {Barada?us), who preserved the episcopal succession when it was threatened by Jus- tinian. The Jacobites are to be found mostly in Mesopotamia, Syria, and Kurdistan, and are esti- mated as numbering some 80,000. Fourthly, the Thomas Christians on the Malabar Coast, who may number about 70,000. These were originally Nesto- rians, having been first evangelized, as we have seen, by the early Nestorians; the Portuguese sought to catholicize them by very harsh means, and succeeded only in attracting their dishke. When the Dutch succeeded the Portuguese in India, and began to persecute the Cathohcs, these Malabar communities returned to schism, but, not being able to find a Nestorian bishop, procured a Jacobite bishop from Jerusalem, to renew their episcopal succession, and thus ended in becoming Monophysites. Fifthly, the Armenians, if we include with those who dwell in Armenia Proper those of the same race and religion who are settled in Asia Minor, European Turkey,