I.

CHAP. afterwards committed to the flames, every document he could find that contained a sentiment opposed to the pretensions and tenets of Rome; the numerous variations that have since been introduced into their creed and ritual: these, and other causes, have combined to render it very difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the character of their church, at that early period of her history. Seeing that the only knowledge we have of their creed and practices at that time is derived from the history of this synod, Dr. Geddes has justly remarked, that Menezes, by composing the acts and decrees in question, was "instrumental in letting the world know "more of the orthodoxy of that Apostolical "Church, than its like they would ever have "known of it otherwise:" and that, therefore, "we have reason to bless Providence for bringing so good an end out of his evil design: but "that we have no reason at all to thank him "for it, who intended nothing less than the "making of such a happy discovery.

66

The following are three leading doctrines of Christianity which appear always to have been held by the Syrian Church in India.

1st. Salvation by faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ for the sins of mankind.

2nd. The necessity of the new birth, or regeneration by the Holy Ghost, before any can believe and be saved.

3rd. The Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity, as defined in the Athanasian creed, but without its damnatory clauses.

As in these fundamental tenets she agreed with every orthodox church in christendom, it is unnecessary to dilate upon them. But it is of importance to show here, wherein she differed 9 Geddes. History, p. 109.

in other respects from the Church of Rome at this period of her history. For this purpose the summary now to be given is drawn up from the most authentic sources extant.

DOCTRINES and CUSTOMS of the Church of Malabar before the Synod of Diamper, whereby it will appear how far she agreed with the reformed Churches of England, Scotland, and other nations, and in what respects she differed from the Church of Rome.1

1st. She rejected the Pope's Supremacy. - It has been sufficiently seen how devotedly the Syrians were attached to the Patriarch of Babylon, and with what difficulty they were brought to tolerate the bare mention of the Pope of Rome in their public services. Even Gouvea admits, that they abhorred the Pope and the Church of Rome as Antichristian, and that because they pretended to superiority and jurisdiction over all other churches. This he, like the Archbishop, attributes to their apostasy from the Mother Church, without, however, attempting to prove that they had ever recognised the papal supremacy, or were in any way associated with that communion. This would have been a difficult task indeed, and none can wonder that they did not undertake it. In this history it has already been shown, that from the earliest period they were independent of Rome, and that they never heard of the Pope,

1 A work has recently appeared, entitled, Missionary Researches in Armenia, by Messrs. Smith and Dwight, two American Missionaries, which contains an interesting account of the Nestorians of Oormiah in Persia. But since, like the Church of Malabar, they have had to contend with the efforts of the Jesuits to reduce them to submission to the Pope, and their tenets and customs are now mixed up with those of Rome, they cannot be referred to as illustrative of the Syrian Church in the sixteenth century. Letters 20, 21.

A. D. 1599.

CHAP.

I.

much less of his arrogant claims, before the arrival of the Portuguese.

2

2nd. She denied the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The Syrians maintained the spiritual presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament, and rejected as an absurdity the figment of the actual presence, when first brought to their notice. On this subject Gouvea has drawn a comparison between them and the reformed churches of Europe, in these characteristic terms.-" Their books contained enormous errors against this holy sacrament, errors that show that the heretics 2 of our own time, who have revived all the ancient heresies and forgotten errors, derived their doctrines from this source." Upon this La Croze exclaims, “An idea worthy of its author! What a chimera to imagine that the sentiments of the reformers upon the eucharist were drawn from Syrian books in India, of which at the time of the Reformation, they had not the slightest knowledge."3 This conformity between parties so unacquainted with each other, proves that they both derived their doctrines from the same source: and both appeal to the word of revealed truth as their authority for what they believe.

3rd. They condemned the Adoration of images as idolatrous.-At that time no idol was to be seen in their churches, except a few in the neighbourhood of the Portuguese stations, of whom some Syrians had learned how to make use of them. This remark does not apply to the figure of a cross, which they had long

2 The Protestants of Europe.

3 Geddes, p. 88. La Croze, p. 177.

4 According to Gouvea, these crosses resembled the miraculous cross of Meliapore, the figure of which may be seen in Father Kircher's Illustration of China.

regarded with reverence, and placed in all their churches.

4th. They maintained that the Church of Rome had corrupted the true faith.-Besides the three fundamental tenets of that Church stated above, the Syrians accused the Romanists of setting up many human inventions, and making the word of God of none effect. This position they stoutly maintained, and indignantly rejected every novelty proposed to them, so long as they were free to think and act for themselves.

5th. Their Church knew nothing of the intercession of Saints.-Indeed, they denied that those who had departed in the faith of Christ were risen from the dead. They believed that their souls were in a state of happiness, but that they would not appear in the presence of God till after the general resurrection and the last judgment. We are not surprised that Gouvea treats this as one of their most pernicious errors, because it strikes at the root of a doctrine that has proved so productive to the treasury of Rome. But their views on the subject were common to all other eastern churches, and in accordance with the word of God.

Here it should be noticed, as in the case of image-worship, that some of the Syrians who resided in the neighbourhood of the Portuguese, had by this time learned to pray to the Virgin Mary and other saints.

6th. Purgatory.-Of this state they had never heard, and were at a loss to understand what Menezes meant, when, at the opening of his campaign, he first brought it to their notice.

7th. Of masses, and prayers for the dead, they knew nothing.

8th. They made no use of holy oil in the administration of Baptism.-It was, however, cus

A. D. 1599.

CHAP.

I.

tomary after the service to rub the infant's body, either with cocoa-nut oil, or gergelin, a species of saffron. This practice, though not attended with prayer or benediction, they regarded as somewhat sacred; and we have seen that they appealed to it as superseding confirmation, when first desired to conform to that rite. 9th. They had no knowledge of extreme unction.

10th. Of auricular confession also they had never heard, and they shrunk from it with great horror when first proposed to them. And well they might, when they found how entirely it held them in bondage to a mercenary priesthood, who thereby carried their jurisdiction to the very thoughts and intentions of the heart, and to the domestic secrets of every family.

11th. They never dreamed of the celibacy of the clergy, who were allowed to marry with all the freedom that the laity enjoyed. Their wives were called cataniares (or caçaneires). They took precedence of the other women at church, and everywhere else, and were distinguished by a cross of gold, or some inferior metal, suspended from the neck.

12th. They denied Matrimony to be a Sacrament.

13th. They appear to have held but two orders, Priesthood and Diaconate: 5 and though they have since been multiplied, after the example of Rome, yet all the inferior orders are included in the Diaconate, and conferred together.

5 The priests are sometimes called, Kasheeshas; the deacons, Shumshanas. It does not appear why the order of Bishops is omitted here. It is conjectured that it was because the head of their Church is not properly called Bishop, but Metropolitan (or rather, Metran) and that a distinction might have been admitted between order and name of dignity.Buchanan's Researches, pp. 108, 109.