Page:Lesser Eastern Churches.djvu/70

48 the Church of Persia was torn by quarrels. The bishops had accused Isaac I of various malpractices, and he was put in prison by the Government. This appeal to the secular, pagan and persecuting power is characteristic of Persian Christians. Mâruthâ used his influence to set Isaac free, convoked a great synod to examine the charges against him and re-establish order generally. The synod met at Seleucia in 410. Mâruthâ played the chief part in it. It was to be for Persia what Nicæa had been for the Empire. About forty bishops were present. Mâruthâ presented letters from the Western Fathers—first Porphyrios of Antioch, the Patriarch (404–413), then the Metropolitan of Edessa and others. Here we see Antioch at the head of its Patriarchate, including Persia. The synod accepts and signs the decrees of Nicaea, including its creed. It accepts the rules made for it by the Western Fathers, namely: that only one bishop shall be allowed in each see; that he shall be ordained by three others; that Easter, the Epiphany, the forty days of Lent and Good Friday shall be kept as in the rest of the Church; that Nicæa shall be accepted. Twenty-one canons were drawn up on the model of those of Nicæa. Of these canons the most important to us are those which regulate the position of the Bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. He is made formally the head, the Primate of the Persian Church. All bishops and metropolitans may appeal to him; he must confirm all episcopal elections. This then definitely realizes the ambition of Papa (p. 41); from now we count the Bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon as unquestioned Primate of Christian Persia. From now also he is commonly called by a title that we meet for the first time. Metropolitan is not enough; he had metropolitans under him. Patriarch is too much; he had a Patriarch over him. He was what we should call an Exarch, like those of Cæsarea and Ephesus. As a matter of fact, he took what seems to have been meant as a more splendid title; he was the Katholikos.