Page:Lesser Eastern Churches.djvu/377

Rh buried there. Later, his relics were taken to Edessa. One's first inclination is perhaps to reject the whole story without more ado. We know the anxiety of local Churches all over the world to claim a direct apostolic foundation; we know, too, how little credit can be given to apocryphal acts of apostles, such as abound in Gnostic literature. On the other hand, a rather better case than one might think can be made for an Indian mission of St. Thomas. Not only from these Acta Thomæ, but from a great number of apparently independent sources, we have a constant tradition that he preached in India. It is true that "India" is a very vague term in early Christian literature. It may mean Arabia or even Ethiopia. Yet, at least in many of these, it is clear that what we know as India is meant. The authenticity of this tradition has been again defended by Father Joseph Dahlmann, S.J., who points out that the name of the Parthian king Gundaphor is now established, that since Alexander the Great the road to India was easy from Syria, that there was continual intercourse between Parthia, India and the West in the 1st century, and that there are many reasons which show that at least the kernel of the tradition is not improbable. But even if we admit in general a mission of St. Thomas to Parthia and to a state in Northern India, this still leaves his alleged foundation of a Church in Malabar very doubtful. It is a far cry from a Parthian kingdom in North India to the south-western coast. To deduce that St. Thomas was in Malabar, because he was at the court of Gundaphor, is like saying that St. Paul came to Britain because he was in Spain. On the other hand, the tradition of Thomas in India would naturally be appropriated