Page:Lesser Eastern Churches.djvu/73

Rh not invited. No Western bishop was present. Dadyeshu‘ was persuaded to withdraw his resignation; he is acknowledged as lawful Bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, his authority over Persia is recognized. What is more important is that this synod asserts his complete independence of any earthly authority; no longer are the "Western Fathers" to have any rights in Persia. That a synod in 424 should draw up such a law seems good evidence that till that time the Western Fathers had used authority of the kind now repudiated. From 424 we must date the independence' of Persia from Edessa and Antioch. This involves, of course, independence from Antioch's superior at Rome; so, from the Catholic point of view, it seems that we must date the Persian Church as schismatical since the Synod of Markabta. What the synod declared was that "Easterns shall not complain of their Patriarch to the Western Patriarchs: every case that cannot be settled by him shall await the tribunal of Christ." It is significant that the title Patriarch is used here for the first time for the Persian Katholikos, that he is thus put on an equality with the Western Patriarchs. That already is schismatical. We do not hear that Edessa or Antioch at the time made any complaint of this infringement of their rights. By the time they heard of it they were already in the turmoil of Nestorianism; the insolence of a remote mission probably did not much trouble them. But for the unhappy Persian Church the act of Markabta was tragically important. The little ship left the harbour and sailed out alone into the coming storm. She, like England in 1559, "hazarded herself to be overwhelmed and drowned in the waters of schism, sects and divisions." She was so overwhelmed and drowned almost immediately.