Page:Lesser Eastern Churches.djvu/102

80 Christians in Greek regions, they will never have a sincere heart and affection towards you. … If, then, you will give me soldiers I will make all Christians in your territory followers of that man (namely, Nestorius)." Barhebræus then represents Bar Ṣaumâ as going about Persia with soldiers, persecuting and massacring all Christians who would not adopt his heresy.

It is certain the Bar Ṣaumâ was the chief propagator of Nestorianism in Persia, mightily aided by the refugees from Edessa in 489 (p. 78). Two other factors complicate the situation. The first is Bar Ṣaumâ's quarrel with the Katholikos. The See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon was then held by Babwai (457–484). He is said to have ruled badly; in any case the domineering Bishop of Nisibis fell foul of him and led an opposition against him. Then Babwai was caught holding treasonable correspondence with the Emperor Zeno, and was hanged by his fingers till dead, in 484. Bar Ṣaumâ is believed to have had a hand in his death. In the same year Bar Ṣaumâ held a synod at Beth Lapaṭ, which is generally counted the first Nestorian assembly in Persia. It made much of Theodore the Interpreter, declared that all should follow him, and denounced the faith of the Roman Empire. As the faith of the empire, or at least of that part of it known to Persians, was then largely Monophysite, it is difficult to say how far this means that the Fathers of Beth Lapaṭ were Nestorian. We have here a case of what recurs throughout this period—vehement opposition to what seemed the only alternative (Monophysism), but some doubt to us whether that opposition meant to go as far as Nestorius. This synod introduces a second factor of considerable importance. All kinds of asceticism, especially celibacy, were very repugnant to Mazdæans (p. 25). So they much disliked vows of celibacy among Christians. Now, when a small Church is surrounded by unbelievers who are particularly opposed to one of its principles, one of two things will happen. Either the Christians in opposition insist all the more firmly on that very point, or, on the other hand, they may be influenced by their neighbours and may modify or discard the practice or