extinguished nearly all the dissensions among the Monophysites and as their churches were so widely dispersed in the East, that the bishop of Antioch could not well govern them all, he associated with him a Maphrian or primate of the East, whose residence was at Tagritum, on the borders of Armenia'. His efforts were not a little aided in Egypt and the neighbouring regions, by Theodosius of Alexandria. From this man, as the second father of the sect, all the Monophysites in the East are called Jacobites.

§ 7. Thus the imprudence of the Greeks, and their inconsiderate zeal for maintaining the truth, caused the Monophysites to become consolidated into a permanent body. From this period, the whole community has been under the government of two bishops or patriarchs, one of Alexandria, and the other of Antioch, who, notwithstanding the Syrians and Egyptians disagree in some particulars, are very careful to maintain communion with each other, by letters and by kind offices. Under the patriarch of Alexandria, is the primate or Abbuna of the Abyssinians; and under the patriarch of Antioch, stands the Maphrian or primate of the East, whose residence is at Tagritum in Mesopotamia. The Armenians have their own bishop, and are distinguished from the other Monophysites by some peculiar rites and opinions.

§ 8. Before the sect of the Monophysites had acquired this strength and consistency, various disagreements and controversies prevailed among them; and particularly at Alexandria, a difficult, knotty question was moved concerning the body of Christ. Julian of Halicarnassus, in the year 519, maintained that the divine nature had so insinuated itself into the body of Christ, from the very moment of his conception, that this body changed its nature, and became incorruptible. With him agreed Cajanus [or Gajanus] of Alexandria; from whom the believers in this sentiment were called Cajanists'. The advo

For the other countries, see the writers of their history.

Jos. Sim. Asseman, Biblioth. Orient. Vatic. tom. ii. p. 410. 414. 418. likewise his Dissert. de Monophysitis, prefixed to tom. ii. of this Bibliotheca.

[Julian is noticed among the writers of the century, above p. 28, note 1. Tr.]

7 [Gajanus was archdeacon of Alexandria, under the patriarch Timotheus III. and on his death, in the year 534, elected patriarch of Alexandria, by the monks and the populace, in opposition to Theodosius, the bishop of the court party. Great commotions now existed in Alexandria; and Gajanus was soon deposed. He fled

cates of this doctrine became divided into three parties; two of which disagreed on the question, whether Christ's body was created or uncreated; and the third maintained, that Christ's body was indeed corruptible, but on account of the influence of the divine nature, never became in fact corrupted. This sect was vigorously resisted by the celebrated Severus of Antioch, and Damianes; who maintained that the body of Christ, before his resurrection, was corruptible, that is, was liable to all the changes to which human bodies in general are. Those who agreed with Julian, were called Aphthartodocetæ, Docetæ, Phantasiastæ, and also Manichæans; because, from their opinion it might be inferred that Christ did not really suffer, feel hungry, fall asleep, and experience the other sensations of a man; but that he only appeared to suffer, to sleep, to be hungry, thirsty, &c. Those who agreed with Secerus, were called Phthartolatræ, and Ktistolatræ or Creaticola. This controversy was agitated with great warmth in the reign of Justinian, who favoured the Aphthartodoceta: but it afterwards gradually subsided. A middle path between the two parties was taken by Xenaias, or Philoxenus of Maubug [or Hierapolis]; for he and his associates held, that Christ really suffered the ordinary sensations of a man; but that in him this was not the effect of nature, but of choice'.

§ 9. Some of the Corrupticole, as they were called, particularly Themistius, a deacon of Alexandria, and Theodosius, bishop of that city, in the ardour of disputation, fell upon another sentiment towards the close of this century', which caused new commotions. They affirmed that while all things

first to Carthage, and then to Sardinia; and we hear little more about him. It is not known that he wrote any thing. See Liberatus, Breciar. cap. 20, and Leontius, de Sectis, art. v. Tr.]

Timotheus, de Receptione Hæreticor. in Jo. Bapt. Cotelier's Monumenta Ecclesiae Gr. tom. iii. p. 409. Liberatus, Breviarium, Controv. cap. 20. Jo. Forbes, Instructiones Historico-theologica, lib. iii. c. 18. 108, &c. Asseman, Biblioth. Oriental. tom. iii. pt. ii. p. 457. [The contests respecting the corruptibility of Christ's body, both among the Monophysites and the Orthodox, are fully

examined, in Walch, Historie der Ketzereyen, vol. viii. p. 550-644. Tr.]

9 Jos. Sim. Asseman, Biblioth. Orient. Vatic. tom. ii. p. 22, and p. 168, &c.

1 [This controversy began, before the middle of the century; for Themistius was a deacon under Timotheus III., who died in the year 535. Theodosius succeeded in that year; but was removed about A. D. 537. The heat of the controversy seems to have been about A. D. 550 or 560; yet it was rife in the time of Gregory the Great, and the sect existed till some time in the seventh century. Tr.]

§ 2. In Italy, the Lombards preferred the opinions of the Arians to the doctrines of the Nicene council. In Gaul and in England, the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian controversies still produced some disquietude. In the East, the ancient sects, which the imperial laws had repressed, but had by no means subdued and extinguished, assumed courage, in several places, and were able to secure adherents. Fear of the laws and of punishment, induced these sects to seek a temporary concealment; but when the power of their foes was somewhat abridged, they again resumed courage.

§ 3. The condition of the Nestorians and Monophysites, under those new lords of the East, the Saracens, was far happier than before that conquest; indeed, while the Greeks were oppressed and banished, both these sects were every where preferred before them. Jesujabus, the sovereign pontiff of the Nestorians, concluded a treaty first with Muhammed, and afterwards with Omar, and obtained many advantages for his sect'. There is likewise extant an injunction, or Testament, as it is commonly called; that is, a diploma of Muhammed himself, in which he promises full security to all christians living under his dominion: and though some learned men doubt the authenticity of this instrument, yet the Muhammedans do not call it in question'. The successors of Muhammed in Persia,

2 Jos. Sim. Asseman, Biblioth. Orient. Vaticana, tom. iii. pt. ii. p. xciv. &c.

3 This famous Testament of Muhammed was brought into Europe from the East, in the seventeenth century, by Pacificus Scaliger, a Capuchin monk; and first published, Arabic and Latin, by Gabriel Sionita, Paris, 1630; and afterwards, the Lutherans, John Fabricius, A.D. 1638, and Hinckelmann, A.D. 1690, published it in Latin. See Jo. Henr. Hottinger, Histor. Oriental. lib. ii. c. 20. p. 237. Asseman, Biblioth. Orient. Vatican. tom. iii. pt. ii. p. xcv. Renaudot, Histor. Patriarchar. Alexandr. p. 168. Those who, with Grotius, reject this Testament, suppose it was fabricated by the monks living in Syria and Arabia, to circumvent their hard masters, the Muhammedans. Nor is the supposition incredible. For the monks of mount Sinai, formerly, showed a similar edict of Muhammed, which

they said he drew up while a private man; an edict exceedingly favourable to them, and beyond all controversy fraudulently drawn up by themselves. The fraud was sufficiently manifest; yet the Muhammedans, a people destitute of all erudition, believed it was a genuine ordinance of their prophet, and they believe so still. This imposition is treated of by Demetr. Cantimir, Histoire de l'Empire Ottoman, tom. ii. p. 269, &c. The argument therefore, which Renaudot and others draw, in favour of the Testament in question, from the acknowledgment of its authenticity by the Muhammedans, is of little weight; because, in things of this nature, no people could be more easily imposed upon, than the rude and illiterate Muhammedans. Nor is the argument of more force, which the opposers of the Testament draw from the difference of its style from

employed the Nestorians in the most important affairs and business both of the court and of the provinces; nor would they suffer any patriarch, except the one who governed this sect, to reside in the kingdom of Babylon*. The Monophysites, in Egypt and Syria, were equally fortunate. In Egypt, Amru, having taken Alexandria in the year 644, directed Benjamin, the Monophysite pontiff, to occupy the see of Alexandria; and from that time, for nearly a century, the Melchites, or those who followed the opinions of the Greek church, had no prelate❜.

§ 4. Among the Greeks, who were otherwise greatly distracted, there arose a new sect, in the year 630, during the reign of Heraclius, which soon produced such commotions, that both the East and the West united to put it down. An illtimed effort at peace produced war. The emperor Heraclius, considering the immense evils resulting to the Greek empire from the revolt of the Nestorians to the Persians, was exceedingly desirous of reconciling the Monophysites to the Greek church, lest the empire should receive a new wound by their departure from it. He therefore, during his war with the Persians, first had a conference, in the year 622, with one Paul, a principal man among the Armenian Monophysites; and afterwards, in the year 629, at Hierapolis, with Anastasius, the Catholicus or patriarch of the Monophysites, respecting the means of restoring harmony. Both of them suggested to the emperor, that the believers in one nature of Christ, might be induced to receive the decrees of the council of Chalcedon, and be reconciled to the Greeks; provided, the

that of the Koran. For it is not necessary to suppose, that Muhammed himself composed this Testament he might have employed his secretary. But however dubious the Testament itself may be, the subject matter of it is not doubtful. For learned men have proved, by powerful arguments, that Muhammed originally would allow no injury to be offered to the christians, and especially to the Nestorians.-[This Testament is a formal compact, between Muhammed on the one part, and the Nestorians and Monophysites, on the other. He promises to them his protection; and

they promise to him loyalty and obedience. He promises them entire religious freedom; and they promise him support against his enemies. Muhammed might have deemed it sound policy to conclude such a treaty with these sectaries; that, by their aid, he might subdue the countries of Asia subject to the Greek emperors. Schl.]

Asseman, Biblioth. Orient, Vatican. tom. iii. pt. ii. p. xevii. &c. Euseb. Renaudot, Historia Patriarch. Alexandrinor, p. 163. 169.

Euseb. Renaudot, Historia Patriarch. Alexandrinor. p. 168.

CENTURY SEVENTH.

PART I.

THE EXTERNAL HISTORY OF THE CHURCH.

CHAPTER I.

THE PROSPERITY OF THE CHURCH.

§ 1. Christianity propagated in China.—§ 2. The English converted.—§ 3. Also the Gauls, Suevi, Frieslanders, Franks, and Helvetii.-§ 4. Judgment concerning these apostles.-§ 5. Jews compelled to embrace christianity.

§ 1. THE christian religion was, in this century, diffused beyond its former bounds, both in the eastern and western countries. In the East, the Nestorians, with incredible industry and perseverance, laboured to propagate it from Persia, Syria, and India, among the barbarous and savage nations inhabiting the deserts and the remotest shores of Asia; and that their zeal was not inefficient, appears from numerous proofs still existing. In particular, the vast empire of China was enlightened, by this zeal and industry, with the light of christianity. Those who regard as genuine and authentic, that Chinese monument of Sigan, which was discovered in the seventeenth century, believe that christianity was introduced into China in the year 636, when Jesujabas of Gadala presided over the Nestorian