"Thomas Christians....had written to Simon VI, the Nestorian Patriarch of Babylon".... This cannot be admitted, for, it is clear from the Latin Document (the letter of St. Thomas Christians to Pope Gregory XIII sent n 1578,) above reproduced on p.154, that St. Thomas Christians had written to Abedjesus, the Catholic Chaldean Patriarch, not to Mar Simon, the Nestorian Patriarch, for a Bishop in the place of Mar Joseph, and in accordance with their request Mar Abraham was sent to them by Abedjesus. ‘The Nestorian Patriarch sent a cleric named Mar Abraham......as he (Mar Abraham) confessed that he had not been validly ordained the Pope gave directions that Mar Abraham should receive holy orders, from tonsure to the Episcopate’....

Since we do not see why and how the author can call Mar Abraham a cleric, for, even supposing that Mar Abraham was a Nestorian it cannot be admitted that a Nestorian Patriarch sent in the place of a Bishop a cleric to govern a diocese as a Bishop; for, even among the Nestorians the dioceses are governed by Bishops, not by simple clerics.

Secondly, In case that Mar Abraham was not validly ordained he should not be called a cleric but a simple layman. 3rdly, the ordination of the Nestorians is recognised as valid by the Catholic Church.

4thly: We find no mention of Mar Abraham’s re-ordination in any of the Papal documents. Therefore, the passage shows a misunderstanding or confusion of ideas on the part of the anti- historians.

The difficulty seems to rise from a conclusion based on the fact that Mar Abraham had ordained priests with the imposition of the hands and with the tradition of the empty chalice and paten. On account of this tradition of the empty chalice etc., the fathers of the third Provincial Council of Goa in 1585 compelled him to reordain the priests whom he had thus ordained. And concluding from this fact that he was similarly ordained, some historians state that he was not validly ordained. But the said fathers and the historians seem to ignore that it is a disputed point whether the tradition of the chalice with wine etc. appertain to the essence of the ordination. For similar reasons, it seems that the Bishop Mar Simon was called a layman by some historians; but the present recognised practice of the Oriental Church which was in early times common with the Latin Church is to ordain priests only with the imposition of the hands.

Mackenzie continues, "when Mar Joseph was leaving Goa in 1568, Mar Abraham appeared at Goa with his credentials from Rome appointing him Archbishop of Angamale. The Viceroy and Archbishop of Goa regarded Mar Abraham as a man who had deceived the Pope by an untrue profession of conformity and they detained Mar Abraham in the Dominican Convent at Goa."

From this again it is clear how unchristian, uncharitable, presumptuous and disobedient were the Portuguese authorities in India; unchristian, because they accuse, on mere false suppositions, their brethren in orthodox faith as heretics and schismatics; uncharitable, because without any reason they accuse a Catholic Bishop of deceit; presumptuous, because they again on mere supposition accuse one of heresy whom the Pope the Supreme Head and the highest authority in the Church together with his papal Curia had closely examined and approved; disobedient, because they did not obey the Pope’s order. It is clear, from the letters of Pope Pius IV to the Archbishop of Goa and Bishop of Cochin dated the last day of February 1565, that Mar Abraham was first sent to Malabar by the Catholic Chaldean Patriarch Abedjesus

The letter of the Pope begins as follows:-

"This beloved brother Abraham, Chaldean by nationality, when he came for ad limina to the tombs of the Apostles from the Indies, who was appointed Archbishop with our sanction by our venerable brother Abedjesus Patriarch of the Assyrians, to the diocese that actually belongs to him in view of his services for him, brought us from the Patriarch letters of recommendation, which moved us..... On that account we ordain and wish that his (Patriarch’s,) jurisdiction be free and inviolate. (Vide letter of Pius IV to the Archbishop of Goa ). Again the same Pope says to the Bishop of Cochin...... On account of his (Mar Abraham’s) communion with the Holy Apostolic See and of the respect due to his Patriarch, you have to include him within the sphere of brotherly love and defend him from all harm as long as he perseveres in the service and faith of this Holy See, which we hope he shall ever keep. You should take him under your protection as he trusts you will, that he may live without any obstacle and molestation where his Patriarch shall have appointed him ... wherefore do diligently guard him from all injury that thereby he may know in what awe you hold us and what obeisance you show the Apostolic See and how much you value the esteem, equity and justice of the same . We, on our part, desire and wish that he obtains without any hindrance that diocese which his Patriarch shall assign him to. (Vide the whole Latin documents on pp. 151,152).

N.B. We cannot understand why the author of the ‘Bullarium Patronatus Portugalliae’ or the author of its ‘Subsidium’ does not give out the above papal documents!!

From these and other similar facts we are compelled to conclude that the Portuguese in India were trying to latinize the Syrians which unhappily ended in dissension, schism and the introduction of Jacobitism in Malabar.

Mackenzie on p.22 says, "It is said that when the Nestorian Patriarch of Babylon heard of this adhesion of Mar Abraham to Rome he called upon Mar Abraham for an explanation and that Mar Abraham replied that he was compelled by force; but had deceiptfully made a Nestorian profession of faith which the Portugese Bishops did not detect."

And he on page 67, note 50, referring to Hough 282, Day 223, Geddes 37, says:- "In a letter to the Nestorian Patriarch which was intercepted (by the Portuguese), Mar Abraham said, that the Portuguese were over his head as a hammer over an anvil; como malhos sobre bigorna, Gouvea’s Jornada, 9.

This is a misrepresentation founded on false suppositions; 1st. ‘That he (Mar Abraham) wrote to the Nestorian Patriarch,...... for, he himself was a Catholic and was sent by a Catholic Patriarch, as has already been shown. 2nd. That the Patriarch required an explanation for his adherence to Rome — for if any Patriarch at all asked him for an explanation it could only be the Catholic Patriarch and that regarding his conduct in the 3rd Provincil Council of Goa which tended towards the changing rites. (Vide the action of the 3rd Provincial Council of Goa, Session III, decrce 7, in which the fathers of the Council ordered the translation of the Latin Pontifical and Ritual into Syriac for the use of the Syrians of Malabar. (Bullarium Patronatus Portugalliae Appendix Vol. 1,p.75). We can therefore only infer from the above passage that Mar Abraham did not consent to anything regarding these changes and innovations in his Syrian Rite but by force.12

Therefore what must be rightly concluded here is that it was the Chaldean Catholic (not Nestorian) Patriarch who called upon Mar Abraham for an explanation regarding the innovations or changes in the ancient Syrian Rite and not of his (Mar Abraham’s ) adhesion to Rome.

The Portuguese, to justify themselves in their illicit actions against the Syrians and their Bishops, always condemned them of heresy, misinterpreting the indifferent actions of the latter. Mar Abraham was persecuted here and there by the Portuguese . He was twice thrown into prison whence he escaped. (Vide letter of the King of Cochin to Pope Gregory XIII dated 2nd . January 1576. p.153). A traditional Vernacular song of the Syrians testifies that the Portuguese were making all contrivances to capture Mar Abraham ‘when he at Cochin , Cranganore, Chenganore and Quilon.’ This tradition is confirmed by Oriente Conquistado (part II . conq.I div.II. para 23,p.74) when it says that "as he (Mar Abraham ) feared of being captured a second time by the Portuguese he was always keeping himself aloof from our fortresses of Cranganore and Cochin.13

The Madras Catholic Directory of 1862. p.98 says:- "Mar Abraham thereupon fled to Angamale, where the Portuguese had no authority over him, and there died in 1597 in the profession of the Catholic faith."

Pierre du Jarri S.J., a contemporary writer in his ‘History of the Jesuits in India’ published at Bordeaux in 1608 ten years after the death of Mar Abraham testifies that Mar Abraham loved the Jesuits, invited the rector of the Vaipicotta Seminary to his death-bed , committed his flock to the care of the Jesuits and commanded all his clergy to obey them and regard the Roman Pontiff as their own Patriarch. (Lib.2.pp.614-615.)

There are historians who say that Mar Simeon was a Catholic Chaldean Bishop, though he was not recognised (on his arrival in Malabar) by the Pope, as the Bishop of the Syrians.Mackenzie, on pp.20 & 21 says , "In this year 1578 there arrived on the Malabar coast one Mar Simeon, claiming to be the Metropolitan of the Thomas-Christians. The previous history of this Bishop is obscure. All that is known is that he obtained a following among the Thomas-Christians and that the Portuguese authorities and the Pope supported Mar Abraham against him. On March 5th. 1580, Pope Gregory XIII wrote a letter warning the Christians of St. Thomas against a certain Simeon, who without lawful mission, had intruded amongst them. The Pope says:-"But be obedient in the Lord to Mar Abraham, your Archbishop, and to George, the Bishop of Palur, and in sincerity of faith and simplicity of manners persevere and live in the unity of our Holy Mother the Church." (Vide p.32.) At the 3rd . Provincial council at Goa in 1585, at which Council Mar Abraham was present, it was resolved to remove Mar Simeon from this coast. He was accordingly arrested in the Franciscan convent at Cochin and was sent through Goa and Portugal to Rome. Before he left the country he contrived to appoint a Syrian priest named Jacob as his Vicar General among the Thomas-Christians and this Jacob continued the dissension for twelve years more. When Mar Simeon arrived in Rome, Pope Sixtus V ordered an inquiry to be held into his case and pronounced a decision that Simeon should retire into a convent for instruction. Simeon was then handed over to Philip II who placed him in a convent at Lisbon. In 1594 when Archbishop Menezes was about to set out for India, the king offered Simeon to the Archbishop in case any use might be found for him in India, but the Archbishop would not have Simeon and left him in the Franciscan convent at Lisbon where he died in 1599."

From the passage quoted above we may infer, (1) that the Pope Sixtus V wanted to send Mar Simeon back to India as Bishop; for this purpose the Pope handed him to Philip II. (2) This follows from the fact that Philip II offered Mar Simeon to Dom Menezes on his departure in 1594 to take him to India. (3) Menezes’ refusal to take him to India tells us that he had premeditated to give no power to Syrian Bishops and if possible to put an end to their existence and the Syrian rite in India.14

Hough’s Christianity, Vol. 1, p.287, says, "With this sentence upon him (Mar Simeon ) he was sent by the Cardinal Severina to Philip II king of Spain, who placed him under the care of Don Alexio de Menezes, whom he was about to send into India as Archbishop of Goa. Mar Simeon naturally expected Menezes to carry him back to India, but instead of this he was kept in confinement at Lisbon, in a Franciscan convent, from whence he is said to have written to his Vicar General, Jacob by every fleet that sailed to India and, in all his letters to have styled himself Metropolitan of India and maintained his unshaken profession of Chaldean faith (Rite). These letters were found some time after, in 1599, by Archbishop Menezes, when he visited Malabar and were sent by him to the chief tribunal of general inquisition of Portugal. It is uncertain whether Mar Simeon was alive at the time of their arrival, but if he was, it is with great probability concluded, that he was made to change his Franciscan prison for a dungeon of the inquistion and that they took good care that he should write no more letters to India."

Mackenzie, p.23, continues:-He (Archbishop Menezes) received intelligence that the aged Mar Abraham had applied to the Nestorian Patriarch for a successor and he at once issued orders to all the Portuguese ports to stop any such Bishop. These orders were in time and a Nestorian Bishop and priest on their way to the Malabar coast were intercepted at Ormuz and were sent back to their own country."

N.B. We have proved above that Mar Abraham was sent by the Catholic Chaldean Patriarch and remained Catholic till his death. But on the contrary the adverse critics have fallen into many errors in their views regarding the orthodoxy of Mar Abraham and his Patriarch and they have called them Nestorians. Basing ourselves on the proof that Mar Abraham was a Catholic, it is ridiculous to surmise that a Catholic Bishop, such as Mar Abraham, applied to the Nestorian Patriarch for a successor ! what must be rightly concluded is that his (Mar Abraham’s) application certainly was to the Catholic Chaldean Patriarch who in accordance with his request sent a Chaldean Bishop with a priest.

Mackenzie continues:-"The Archbishop (Menezes ) was on tour in the north of the Portuguese territory when, through an express from the Viceroy of Goa, he received the news of the death of Mar Abraham. He at once appointed Father Francis Roz. S.J., the Rector of the Seminary at Vaippicotta as administrator of the vacant Angamale diocese, but this appointment was kept back by the council at Goa as unwise, and the Archbishop, hearing their views, cancelled the appointment of Father Francis Roz and appointed the Syrian Archdeacon George as Administrator, directing him to make the usual profession of faith . For some time the Archdeacon gave no sign but at last he plucked up courage to be openly hostile and to show his hand. At Angamale he assembled a Synod in which solemn resolutions were passed to acknowledge no Bishops but those sent by the Nestorian15 Patriarch." Vide Mack .p.23.

Giamil on p.603, says, "Mar Joseph having breathed his last and Mar Simeon having been deported to Portugal, Mar Abraham alone governed the Malabar Church till the year 1597 when he closed his life at Angamale from old age after having committed the Church to the charge of Archdeacon George of Christ.

Mr. Mackenzie in his ‘Christianity’ page 70, note 55, referring to Archbishop Menezes’ visit to Carturte Major says-

"As a sample may be quoted the following passage from Gouvea’s Jornada, p.47, telling of the Archbishop’s visit to Kadaturutta:- "Next day, which was Holy Saturday the Archbishop performed the office in his Pontifical robes with much solemnity which was seen by all the people, and he gave Holy Orders to many, a thing which had never happened in time past, and showed that the threats of the managers (regedores) had no force there. All swore to the Faith and obedience to the Roman Church, as others had done, so that from this time the party of the Archbishop increased and acquired more strength in Christanity. Late in the evening of that day arrived Father Francis Roz of the company of Jesus (who is now the most worthy Bishop of these people) whom the Archbishop was very glad to see, because Father Francis Roz was well known to all the Christians and was by them held in much reverence, as he preached to them in their own language, and in the College of Vaipicotta was Professor of Chaldaic and Syrian. Coming up to the Archbishop he gave thanks to God, saying "Is this Carturte, which I know so well? Only a few months ago, when I came to stay here, they shut the door of the Church in my face and I had it opened by the Police (regedor da Rayna.) When saying Mass, when I elevated the most Holy Sacrament, they all covered their eyes. They thrashed one of my pupils because he named the Pope in the church, and a few years ago, when I showed them an image of our Lady, among the same people many persons closed their eyes, crying out to take away that filth, that they were Christians and did not adore idols or pagodas, which they considered all images to be." The good Father, seeing such a change, embraced all, saying , "Is it possible?" "Is this Carturte? Is Carturte no longer schismatical ? Do they no longer adore the idol of Babylon ? Have they given obedience to the Roman Church?’ (Vide Mack. pp.70,71.)

We have to make a few remarks on the above passage. "Only a few months ago, says Fr.Roz, when I came to stay here, they shut the door of the Church in my face and I had it opened by the police:" The Portuguese assume that the Syro-Malabar Christians were Nestorians from the time of Nestor down to the Synod of Diamper. In this supposition that they were schismatics, it is difficult to understand how Father Roz could have had recourse to secular authorities to have the door of a schismatic Church that was closed against him opened. Imagine now a Catholic priest going up to the police of the Travancore Government asking it to do violence to a Jacobite Church, for refusing him admission. Taking for granted that the door was opened by the police, that action would only prove the orthodoxy of the Church. The opposition shown to Fr.Roz by the Syrians could not then have been owing to the difference in doctrine, but would have been on the question of rites-This latter hypothesis is almost confirmed when we look to the teaching of Canon law on the prohibition bearing on the mixing up of different rites-In spite of their aversion to the Latin rite the people of Carturte were the first to subject themselves to Dom Menezes, a Latin Prelate.(Vide Gouvea Fol.46.)

"When saying Mass, continues Fr.Roz, when I elevated the most Holy Sacrament they all covered their eyes." Had it been a schismatic Church how could Fr.Roz, a Catholic priest, have celebrated Mass in it. It is moreover hard to believe that the people would have done an act of irreverence covering their eyes at the time of the elevation of the most Holy Sacrament, since the Nestorians do in no way differ from the Catholics in the dogma, regarding the real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist.

Fr.Roz yet goes on to say that the people thrashed one of his pupils for naming the Pope in the Church. Where and how shall we find a link of reconciliation between the two incidents almost diametrically opposite. Jarric pp. 615-6, a contemporary Jesuit historian, testifies that the Syrians of Malabar celebrated with great joy the Jubilee of Pope Clement VIII in 1596, three years before the occurence of the present incident-For he says that the Syrians kept up the occasion with all possible grandeur and solemnity crowding the Churches till midnight.(Vide also ‘D’Orsey’s Portuguese Discovery,’ pp.191-192.)

"A few years ago, when I showed them an image of our Lady among the same people many persons closed their eyes, crying out to take away that filth, that they were Christians and did not adore idols or pagodas, which they considered all images to be." This statement does not coincide with the contemporary monuments still in existence - For among others there is still to be seen a slab on the outer wall(northern)of the Church at Carturte on which is the following inscription in old Malayalam -On the 22nd. February in the year of our Lord 1590 this Church was reconstructed by Mar Abraham the Bishop assisted by four priests who also had it consecrated-. Five crosses of granite which are said to contain the relics of St. Stephen are still to be seen in its walls. This fact is an argument proving by itself the veracity of the consecration of the Church. Well now taking our stand on this data, viz. that the Church was reconstructed in 1590 A.D., nine years ago, one has only to make use a little of the principles of logic to show the utterance of Fr. Roz unfounded. The facade (western) of that Church still bears the images of our Lord, our Blessed Lady, the Apostles, and the Angels cut out of stone. We cannot give credit to the words that the people considered all images to be idols, since facts tend to prove quite the contrary. Add to this the testimony of Gouvea (Fol. 47) bearing on the same subject:- The huge granite cross erected in the church-yard (eastern), bears likewise the images of our Lord, the Blessed Mother etc. It will be here remembered that this master-piece of the cross was erected two years before the visit of Archbishop Menezes to Carturte, and that they had it blessed at his hand on Good Friday. (Vide Gouvea Fol. 47.) In what Fr. Roz means to say when he speaks of the adoration of the idol of Babylon he is still more enigmatic. Does he perhaps mean the Patriarch of Babylon ? Is subjection to a Catholic Patriarch like unto the adoration of an idol ? Was it schism subjection of the Syrians according to their rite to the Patriarch of Babylon who was in communion with Rome ? How could Dom Menezes confer so soon Holy Orders on many of the Syrians if they were schismatics ?

Rites and Languages.16

The Different Rites and Liturgical Languages.

Our late Holy Father Pope Leo XIII., of happy memory, in his Apostolic letter "Orientalium dignitas Ecclesiarum," 30th November, 1894, explained that the various Rites of the Church are her ornaments, as the various precious gems of a precious jewel. The learned Cardinal Bona, referring to the various Rites of the Church, compares them to the varied rich colours of the vesture of the spouse in the Canticle of Canticles. So at present the divine sacrifice of the Mass is offered to God in the Church in 12 different languages and 18 different Rites. The great majority of Catholics throughout the world follow the Latin Rite, which is in use at Rome; but there are some other Rites in use in the Latin Church, even in the West. They are the old Latin Rite, called the Ambrosian Rite, used at Milan, the Mozarabic Rite of Spain (in the Latin Language), used in the Toledo Cathedral and the Slav-Latin Rite, which is the same Latin liturgy translated into the Slavonic language and used in some parts of Dalmatia. The above mentioned four kinds are called Occidental Rites. Other Occidental Rites (the Gallican, the Rite of Sarum in England etc.) were abolished by the Council of Trent. [Vide O’Brien’s History of the Mass. Chap. VII.]

Oriental Rites.

In the East there exist at present fourteen different Rites in union with Rome. They are the Armenian Rite in the Armenian language; the Coptic Rite of Alexandria in the Egyptian Language; the Aethiopic or Abyssinian Rite, (the Aethiopic language is the liturgical language of the Modern Abyssinians who differ but very little from the Copts either in discipline or ecclesiastical customs : among the Copts and Abyssinians there are many Monophysites); six kinds of Greek Rites and finally five kinds of Syrian Rites.

Greek Rites.

The Greek Rites are divided into (1) the pure Greek, of which the liturgical language is the very old Greek itself; (2) the Greco- Ruthenian, to which belong all Slavonic nations, viz., Russians, Serbians, Istrians, Liburians, Dalmatians &c., who use the Greek liturgy in the Slavonic language; (3) the Greco-Bulgarian in which is used the Greek liturgy in the Bulgaric language;(4) the Greco-Rumenian with the Greek liturgy in the Rumenian language; (5) the Greco-Vallachian with the Greek liturgy in the Vallachian language, and finally (6) the Greco-Melkit having the Greek liturgy in the Arabic language mixed with Greek. The Melkits are again divided into Greco-Melkits and Syrian-Melkits. The latter use the Greek liturgy in the Syriac language. The term Melkits from the Syriac Malka, a King, was first employed at the Council of Chalcedon (451) to designate the Orthodox party, at whose head was the Emperor Marcian.

Syrian Rites.

The term Syriac is a common epithet for the Rite as well as the language. But Syrians are divided into Oriental Syrians and Occidental Syrians, which division originated from the former having dwelt on the East of the rivers Tigris and Euphrates, and the latter on the West of the rivers, though now both are found mixed with each other in various places.

The Syrian Rite is divided into (1) the pure or Syrian Rite of Antioch, (2) Syro-Maronite Rite of Mount Lebanon, and (3) Syro- Melkit Rite of the East. These three kinds of Syrians are called Occidental Syrians, observing very nearly the liturgy of St. James, the Apostle.

The Maronite Syrians received the name Maronite from a holy monk, St. Maro who inhabited the Lebanon in the fifth century opposing the doctrine of Eutich, who (St. Maro) became celebrated all over the East for his eminent sanctity. Some say that at one time they fell into the Monothelite heresy; but they themselves deny the charge, maintaining that their faith has always been orthodox. In derision they are called the Eastern Papists, so great is their loyalty to the Holy See. (O’Brien, page 23.)

Other kinds of Syrian Rites are the Syro-Chaldean of Babylon and Syro-Chaldean of Malabar. They are called Oriental Syrians and observe the liturgy entitled "Sacrum Beatorum Apostolorum" which is said to have been composed by St. Thomas the Apostle, who preached in the East and was upheld by St. Adaeus one of the 72 disciples of Jesus Christ, and St. Agheus, the disciple of St. Adaeus himself, and so on. They are also called Syro-Chaldeans, for the headquarters of their Patriarch was in Chaldea. The Syro-Chaldean Rite was introduced into Malabar by the Syrians of the East, who colonized Malabar in the early centuries.

What was the Rite Introduced into India by the Apostle?

Both tradition and history testify that St. Thomas, one of the 12 Apostles of Jesus Christ, came to the East Indies, preached the Gospel and founded there a Church. But we are not certain as to the language of the liturgy he introduced into India. It is however probable that he had introduced it in the principal languages of India, as the other Apostles did wherever they preached in the vernacular of the country. For example, St. Peter, first brought it to Jerusalem in Syriac, to Antioch in Greek, and to Rome in Greek or in Latin; St. John brought it in Greek to Ephesus, St. Thadaeus in Armenian to Armenia, St. Matthew in Aethiopic to Aethiopia, and those who preached in Palestine introduced it in Syriac, such as SS. James Major and Minor and St. Thomas himself in Chaldea and Persia &c.

Some writers think that St. Thomas the Apostle brought the Syrian liturgy to Malabar ! To verify this assertion, two conditions must be supposed :- The Apostles ought to have had a determination to observe everywhere the liturgy in the Syriac language, or the people of India ought to have known the Syriac language. But it is clear that neither of these hypotheses can be proved.

Rev. Fr. O’Brien in his history of the Mass, page 20, says :- "Eckius, a learned German divine and antiquarian of the sixteenth century, was the first who brought the opinion that Mass was celebrated everywhere in the beginning in Hebrew. But this cannot be sustained, for the ablest liturgical writers and linguists hold that in the days of the Apostles Mass was celebrated in the language that prevailed in those places where the Apostles went to spread the light of the gospel; hence at Jerusalem it was celebrated in Syriac, at Antioch, Alexandria, and other Grecian cities in Greek, and at Rome and throughout the entire West in Latin. As the first Mass, then, was celebrated at Jerusalem, it is an opinion which it would be rash to differ from that the language in which it was offered was the Syriac." (Bona Rer. Liturg ; 207.; Gavantus, Thesaur sacr. Rit. 16-17. Kosma, Liturg. sacr. Cathol. P. III.) It is therefore probable that the Malabarians obtained the Syrian liturgy (in 4th century) from the Syro-Chaldean Missionaries of Seleucia (Chaldea) where it was introduced by St. Thomas the Apostle himself, and after six years, when he left those countries for India, was upheld, as said above, by his successors.

Abed Jesus V. (George Khayyath) the late Catholic Patriarch of Babylon, in his book "Romanorum Pontificum Primatus," page 157, proves that the Holy Magi who came from the Orient to adore the Infant Jesus were Chaldeans or Assyrians and Persians. It is said also by historians that these Magi were baptised by St. Thomas the Apostle. Khayyath, on page 163, says that they commemorate, as the founders of their Church, St. Thomas the Apostle, St. Thaddeus, St. Marim and St. Aghews. The liturgy which was always used by the Syro-Chaldeans and was entitled "Sacrum Beatorum Apostolorum," is attributed to those Apostles, and it is the first and the most ancient of other liturgies.

PART II.

Syriac or Syro-Chaldaic is the Same Language.

O’Brien (page 23-24) has mentioned only nine liturgical languages and he thinks the Syriac and Syro-Chaldaic are two different languages. And some other recent writers also say that Syriac and Chaldaic are sister languages, as are Tamul and Malayalam. But Syriac or Syro-Chaldaic is one and the same language, with the same words and rules of grammar. There are no substantial differences between them, while Tamul and Malayalam have a different grammar and different words in many respects. The only difference between Syriac and Chaldaic is in the pronunciation and characters, which are accidental ones. The grammarians of the Syro-Chaldaic language say that it has four kinds of characters and two pronunciations.

Rev. Joseph Guriel, the late professor of the Syro-Chaldaic language in the Propaganda College, Rome, in the preface to his Chaldaic grammar says:- "The Chaldaic language being the prince and mother of all languages flourishes in twenty-seven provinces, whether in the ordinary vernacular, or in sacred liturgy, according to the differences of provinces to which the people belong, or rather places (Theodoretus and others), in which it is used, and obtained various and divers names. Similarly according to the method and manner of writing in the same provinces, it has adopted different forms of characters.

The Character or Form of Writing.

The forms or characters of the written Syriac are various. The form called Estranghela is the oldest of all, so scholars say. According to Assemani this word Estranghela comes from a Greek word meaning ‘round’; but as it is hard to see where the roundness comes in, others derive the word from an Arabic compound meaning "Gospel-writing." This latter opinion seems more probable. [See Philip’s Syriac Grammar. Introduction p. 6; also O’Brien. p. 24.]

But another simpler form, which is not much different from the Estranghela, was introduced by the Chaldeans owing to the facility with which it may be written. Perhaps because the Nestorians first employed this peculiar form it is called the Nestorian character. It is in general use among the Syro-Chaldeans of Babylon, Mesopotamia, Syria, Persia, Malabar &c., Indeed, some historians indiscriminately called all those, who used this Estranghela, Nestorians.

Hence one is not surprised at the action of Mar Elia, Archbishop of Amed, who in a letter to Cardinal Carafa, at Rome, about 1580, begged his Eminence to obtain again an order from the Holy See to abolish the improper practice of addressing the Syro-Chaldeans as Nestorians. Pope Eugenius IV. at one time17 turned his attention to this abuse; and Mar Elia reminded the Cardinal that the Chaldeans of Assyria, Malabar &c. are Catholics living in perfect submission to the Holy See and that this order should be published throughout Christendom. (Vide Patronatus Portugalliae, Tom. II page 241.)

A third character similar to the second but doubled in writing, is called "Double Character".

Finally a fourth character which is written in orbicular form is called Psitha i.e., simple character, which is generally used by all Occidental Syrians, viz., Catholic pure Syrians of Antioch, Syro-Maronites of Lebanon, Syro-Melchits of the East, and all Monophysites or Jacobites of Antioch and Malabar. Jacobitism was introduced into Malabar only towards the end of the 17th century by the Jacobites of the East. Before that period there was in Malabar only one oriental Rite. Hence they are commonly called Puthenkuttucares, i.e., new party, whilst Catholic Syrians are called Pazheakuttucars, i.e., old party.

Pronunciation.

All Occidental Syrians pronounce Scapa, i.e., the sign of the vowel a long as o. For example Alaha, God, is pronounced Aloho, which the Oriental Syrians (Syro-Chaldeans) pronounced Alaha. The Oriental Syrians conserve the ancient mode of punctuation, i.e., the defects of vowels are supplied by the small points over and below the letters. But the Occidental Syrians use not only that manner of accentuation, but also supplement it by certain signs formed similarly to the Greek vowels. This new pronunciation and character originated probably after the 10th century.

The Oriental Syrians have all claim to antiquity, because they retain the original and genuine mode of reading, pronouncing and writing the Syriac language. This can be proved almost to a demonstration both from the common consent of critics and from the numerous Syriac expressions that we find here and there in the New Testament even in their original dress, such as "talitha cumi (read tlitha cum, i.e. puella surge, St. Mark v. 41); eloi, eloi lamma sabacthani (read el, el lmana sbacthan); ephphetha (read ethpathah, i.e. adperire" mark. 7.34). Aba, father; Kepa (not Caepha as some writers think); all of which are Syriac words with a few euphonic changes made to suit Greek ears. The word Kepa, which in Syriac means rock, was applied without any change of form to Simon Bar Yona, as his prerogative. i.e. Kepa. (In the time of our Lord the most particular and common language of the greater part of Judea, especially of Jerusalem itself and its environs, was Hebrew, or better known as Syro-Chaldaic, and more generally the Aramaic or Syriac, because Jews, on account of their seventy years’ absence in Babylon, could no more understand the pure Hebrew of the Bible, and the Targam, i.e., interpretation was originally a rendering of the scriptures into the East-Aramaic, viz., Syriac. O’Brien).

Antiquity and Prerogatives of Syro-Chaldaic.

Bar-Hebraeus writing on the antiquity of the Syriac language says:- "There was once only one language and only one speech for the whole world, and that language was the Syro-Chaldaic, (not Hebrew as some writers, think), as Abraham was from Hur of Chaldea." "Abraham was called at first a Hebrew" because he crossed the famous river Prath, i.e., Euphrates, maintains Ebedjesus Sobensis (in praefactione carminum). St. Ephrem says that "the first language i.e., the Syro-Chaldiac, in which God spoke to Adam, our first parent, was confined to Heber and successively propagated to the time of Abraham, and when the latter crossed the river (Heber) it was called Hebrew." The name Heber or Hebrew seems to have been derived from the Syriac word Avar, which means ‘crossed (the river.)’

Solomon Bassorensis (in his book Apis. C. 24), writes :-"From Adam till the construction of the tower (of Babylon) there was only one speech in the world, viz., Aramean, i.e. Syrian, though some writers contend that it was Hebraic. But the Hebrews began to be called by this name only after Abraham crossed the river (Heber) Euphrates."

Jesus-Bar-Nun (8th century) in his grammar says: -"Syria was thus called by the name of Syrus, who having killed his brother, reigned in Mesopotamia, and hence the whole region during his reign was called Syria. But in ancient times Syrians were called Arameans ..... We know that the Aramean language in which Abraham spoke was the Syriac." (see Khayyath, page 146.) It must be noted that the Syrian liturgical language, like Latin, is no longer a spoken language. But the languages spoken by the Eastern people are either Arabic, Syrian or Persian dialects.

Waltomus says (in Prolog. 3. de. antiq.Chald.) that all wisdom originated from the Syro-Chaldeans, and sciences were brought from the East to other parts of the world; as the Romans received sciences from the Greeks, so the Greeks and others received them at first from the Chaldeans, i.e. Assyrians. The former (the Greeks and Latins) assiduously cultivated them afterwards. Thus in the words of Justin, "Solis Chaldaeis sapientia cessit, Hebraei ingenitum regem, mente Deumque colunt." (Vide Guriel Page 6-7.)

Nobility of the Syriac.

It is a matter of honest pride to those people who say Mass in Syro- Chaldaic that they are using the very same language that was spoken by Our Divine Lord Himself and His blessed Mother, as well as by the Apostles.

Moreover, the opinion is held by the ablest liturgical writers that it was St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles and the Head of Christ’s Church, who said the first Mass-which was celebrated in Syriac - and this after the descent of Holy Ghost, in the very same Cenacle at Jerusalem where the Blessed Eucharist was instituted, and where Our Lord uttered the words "Do this in commemoration of Me." (O’Brien)

A Catholic.    

(Taken from ‘the Catholic Watchman, Madras 18th -25th September 1903. See also I.C. Missions, London, Jan. March .... Nos. 1904).

In support of the orthodoxy of the Syro-Chaldeans we translate below a passage from the Latin narration of His Eminence, Cardinal Maffeus on the state of the Chaldean Church made before the assembled Cardinals in Rome on the occasion of the conferring of the Pallium to the Patriarch, Mar Simeon Sulaca, 20th Feb. 1553 reproduced by Giamil from Baronio:-

"As a matter of fact they (Chaldeans) seem to have had but the name of ‘Nestorians’ but not to have held Nestorian errors, for I see nothing in these men that are here, which may have a bearing on that sect. Envy seems to have found its entry among the Maronites, Jacobites, Coptes and other Christians of those regions likely both on account of the name, and on account of the fact that they outnumbered the other sects in population as well as in the state and frequenting of the Churches, for down to India their Churches extend. Moreover nearly three hundred years back or upwards, according to the common suffrage of the nation a certain Maraus (Mar-Ara) was sent up to the Holy Apostolic See that he may be chosen their Patriarch. He was indeed created Patriarch by the supreme Pontiff and sent back to his own people. It is very likely that many reforms were made in the old religion to render the dogmas clearer and consentaneous to our Church" (see Giamil p. 480.)18

Cardinal Amulius, who had been a witness to the profession of faith made at Rome by Mar Abed-Jesus Patriarch of the Assyrians, gives among others the following information to the leaders of the Council of Trent on the faith of the Chaldeans :-

... "Twice we willingly gave him (Mar Abed-Jesus) testimony in writing, which declares his probity, prudence, erudition and nobility. For his illustrious origin, not to speak of his fortune which he had in abundance considering the circumstances of the place, the fact of his being a sexagenarian, all stand as, as many strong arguments proving to evidence that the object of that long, arduous and perilous journey which he undertook could have been no other than to visit ‘ad limina’ the tombs of the Apostles, kiss the feet of the sovereign Pontiff and to do homage to this See. It is certain that he was once ill-treated by the Druds, twice by the Turks and that he was beaten with cudgels. Often when questioned on holy writ, he, to the great admiration of all those that heard him through the medium of interpretors, gave very grave and profuse answers; enumerated sacred authors both of the Old and New Testaments, such as are not admitted by the Hebrae or heretics. He named nearly all the old Greek and Latin authors such as are in use among us. He said that he had read their versions in Chaldaic, Syriac or Arabic, besides others whose names are not even known to us. He further said that the books written at about the Apostolic age were even now to be seen in a certain library of Caraemeit (Amida) one of the towns of the Turks. We owe to the great bounty of God a debt of gratitude, for, is it not through His benign kindness that cult of the true faith is maintained in so distant regions, hardly even known to us ? That the Christian religion flourishes among them perhaps no ways less than among us, is it not again a proof of His great goodness ? Does not the fact that the doctrine taught by the Apostles Thomas and Thaddeus, and confirmed by the pious preaching of their disciple Maraus still preserved in all purity and so strongly upheld by this Patriarch that he even promised to give a written proof of it, proclaim the goodness of the Almighty? He goes on to say that they scarcely differed from us in the use of the sacraments, for they had, says he, like ourselves auricular confession, prayer for the dead, the canon of their Mass very much the same as ours, consecration the same, they revere the images of Saints by recital of holy invocations. The faithful subjects to the Patriarch are estimated to be two hundred thousands. This argument will suffice to confute over six hundred other vain fabrications of the obstinate heretics.19 During the space of 1500 years the dignity of the Church was kept up, the salutary doctrine has remained intact among the nations that are seperated from us by very distant regions notwithstanding the overthrow of dynasties and kingdoms, the various forms of religions under the hard yoke of the infidels, frequent injuries and contumelies in a barbarous surrounding; that selfsame doctrine, being put to the test in our vicinity. But how great and praise-worthy these are, your most illustrious Eminences should judge. I, on my part in compliance with the mandate of our Holy Father the Pope, am sending you two letters containing the profession of the Patriarch, paying the homage of obedience to the sacred Council; at the same time I commend myself very humbly to your Eminences, your Eminences’ most humble servant, Marcus Antonius Cardinal Amulius, Rome, 29th August 1562. (Translated from Giamil’s ‘Genuinae Relationes’ pp. 66-67.)

Two Tibetian pilgrims by name George of Davit and his cousin John of Davit a lay brother of St. Basil, both Syro-Chaldean Christians of St. Thomas, came from Lahse to Jerusalem by land in five months and went thence to Rome to visit the Basilicas of the Holy Apostles and to kiss the feet of Pope Paul V. in March 1606 and among other informations they gave the following account.

"Regarding their religion they say that they are the disciples of St. Thomas and that they have always been Catholics and for 150 years they have kept themselves in union with the Latin Church."20 ‘Perhaps they thereby mean to indicate the time when the Bull of Pope Eugene was issued (in 1439) for the union of the Armenians. For it should here be remembered that they live in the confines of Armenia if not perhaps in the 27 Provinces that form Armenia. And some of the Armenians have the Chaldean idiom, besides it may be that they have been since then subject to the Primate of Armenia..........

"When they were told that the Chaldeans in the East were believed to be Nestorians, that in India the Christians of St. Thomas of Mylapore were at one time Nestorians, that they had a Nestorian Bishop appointed for them by the Patriarch of Babylon and consequently it was not possible to believe that they were Catholics, they made the following reply :-"The Nestorians have for themselves a Patriarch under the title of Patriarch of Ceulach and Tauris. The Nestorians are very much abhorred by the Chaldeans on account of heresy as excommunicated and they (Nestorians) know very little about the Christians of India on account of the great distance that lies between themselves and the Indians. "I believe that the Patriarch of Tauris usurps also the ancient title of ‘Patriarch of Babylon’ by whom the Nestorian Bishops were appointed. It is not a novel thing that the Catholics in the East are called Nestorians as it appears from the said Bull of Pope Eugene" (Vide Giamil p. 11.) Translated from the Italian narration taken from the Vatican Archives by Giamil p. 102-103.

The Madras Catholic Directory of 1893 (p. 199.) says, "The true faith which the greater part of the Christians (in Malabar) have preserved up to this date is a precious inheritance which their forefathers received from St. Thomas the Apostle and left to their posterity." (Reported by H. L. Dr. Lavigne S.J., then Vicar Apostolic of Kottayam.)

XL.

We find in the actions 21 of the Synod of Diamper, Session III, Decree VIII:- "The Synod doth therefore command in virtue of obedience and upon pain of excommunication to be ipso facto incurred, that no person of this bishopric, secular or ecclesiastical shall from hence forward presume, by word or writing, either in the Holy Sacrifice of the mass, or in the Divine Office, or in any other occasion, to bestow that title on the said Patriarch 22 of Babylon, or on any other prelate besides our Lord the Bishop of Rome: and whosoever shall dare contravene this order, shall be declared excommunicate and held a schismatic and heretic, and shall be punished as such, according to the Holy Canons: and whereas the Partriarchs of Babylon, to whom this Church was subject, are Nestorians, the heads of that cursed sect and schismatics out of the obedience of the Holy Roman Church, and aliens from our Holy Catholic faith, and are for that reason excommunicated and accursed: and if not being lawful to join with such in the Church in public as stand excommunicate : wherefore this bishopric, upon its having now yielded a perfect obedience to the most Holy Father the Pope, Christ’s Vicar upon Earth, to which it was obliged by divine authority, and upon pain of damnation shall not, from hence forward, have any manner of dependence upon the said Patriarch of Babylon and the present Synod, does under the said precept of obedience, and upon pain of excommunication to be ipso facto incurred, prohibit all priests, and curates from henceforward to name the said Patriarch of Babylon in the Holy sacrifice of the mass or in any other divine office, in the prayers of the Church, even without false title of universal 23 pastor. But instead thereof shall name our Lord the Pope, who is our true Pastor, as also of the whole Church; and after him the Lord Bishop of the diocese, for the time being: and whosoever shall maliciously and knowingly act the contrary, shall be declared excommunicate, and otherwise punished at the pleasure of his prelate, according to his contumacy." (Hough Vol. II. p. 538.)

Session v. Decree I.

"Forasmuch as it is of great moment that all things belonging to the sacrifice of the Mass should be preserved pure and undefiled, and whereas this Church has been for 1200 years from under the obedience of the Holy Roman Church the mistress of all other Churches and from whence all good government and true doctrines do come, all the Bishops that came hither from Babylon having been schismatics and Nestorian heretics who have added to, and taken from the Mass at their pleasure without any order: from whence it has come to pass, that several things are foisted into the Syrian Mass which is said in this diocese, without any consideration, and such things too as may give occasion to many impious and heretical errors: for which, if due order were observed, all the missals of this bishopric ought to be burned, as also for there having been of Nestorian use and compiled by Nestorian heretics: but being there are no other at present, they are tolerated, until such time as our Lord the Pope shall take some order therein, and there shall be missals sent by him printed in the Chaldaic tongue which is what this Synod humbly and earnestly desires may be done." (Hough Vol. II. p. 583.)

We have to note here that, "Whereas this Church (of Malabar) has been for 1200 years from under (extra) the obedience of the Holy Roman Church, the Mistress of all the other Churches, and from whence all good government and true doctrines do come, all the Bishops that came hither from Babylon having been Schismatics and Nestorian heretics ...... (Vide Session V. Decree I.)" The authors of the Synod admit that this Church of Malabar founded by St. Thomas the Apostle, was from its origin under the obedience of the Holy Roman Church till the end of the fourth century. But the Portuguese historians, as well as the authors of the Synod of Diamper condemn the Syrians of Malabar as having been Nestorians for 1200 years without any interruption till 1599 the year of the Synod of Diamper. But Nestorianism originated only in the year 430 A.D. From this the readers may easily understand how the Portuguese rashly condemned the Syrians of Malabar as being Nestorians thirty years before the origin of Nestorianism. But we have to ask the Portuguese whether the Catholicity of the Church was, in all ages and places, as it is in reality, universal or not? In support of the Catholicity of the Church we quote here a passage from the Circular of Dom. Menezes concerning the Synod of Diamper dated 14th May 1599, "and being also moved by the piety of the people, and and the mercy God has shown them in having preserved so many thousand souls in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, from the time that the Holy Apostle St. Thomas had preached to them until this day, notwithstanding their having lived among so many heathens, and been scattered in divers places their Churches and all belonging to them, having been always subject to idolatrous kings and princes and encompassed with heathens and pagodas and that without holding any correspondence with any other Christians before the coming of the Portuguese into these parts: We being likewise desirous that the labours of the Holy Apostle St. Thomas which still remained among them should not be lost for want of sound doctrine." (Hough Vol. II. p. 3.)

It is to the interest of the Holy Roman Church to establish by evidence that the Catholic religion which was planted here by the Apostle St. Thomas, was by a special grace of God, and as an additional test to the Catholicity and supremacy of the Church preserved here in the middle of idolaters. This was the reason, why the Roman Catholic Syrians even now are locally called Pazheakuttukar (ancient party), while the Jacobites are called Puthenkuttukar (new party.) These nominations tell their own History just as ‘Catholics’ or ‘Protestants’ denote the true nature of the kinds of faith professed by those who are known by these names.

In support of the Catholicity of the Malabar Church we quote also the following passage from the ‘Dialogue’ published in 1902. (Vide Dialogue pp. 29, 30.)

"Bishop Medlycott’s assertion, ‘All Malabar besides knows and admits it (Nestorianism) notwithstanding any vain attempts to falsify history" is quite against the contents of the documentary letter under date the 15th September 1890, which was submitted by the Bishops of Malabar to T. Rama Row Esq. the then Dewan of Travancore. In that letter, representing the evils of the intended marriage regulation, the Bishops say: - "2. No case has been made out calling for any special regulation affecting Native Christian marriages of Catholics. These have, in the past, been "solemnized according to the rules, rites, ceremonies and customs" of the Catholic Church, which makes ample provision for the proper celeberation of marriages by duly ordained and appointed ministers, for the registration of every marriage and these registers are kept at every Catholic Parish Church whether of the Latin or Syrian rite. 3. From the first centuries of the Christian era, this Church has been established in this land of Malabar and she reckons over eighteen centuries of continuous existence long in fact before the formation of the present state of Travancore." The letter is signed in the following order.

+ Fr. Leonard Mellano, O.C.D. Archbishop of Varapoly.

+ Fr. Ferdinand Ossi, O.C.D. Bishop of Quilon.

+ John Gomes Ferreira, Bishop of Cochin.

+ Charles Lavigne S.J., Bishop of Milevis, Vicar Apostolic of Kottayam.

+ Adolphus E. Medlycott Bishop of Tricomia, Vicar Apostolic of Trichur.

+ Fr. Marcellinus Berardi O.C.D. Coadjutor to Archbishop of Verapoly."

We read in Session III, Decree IX (Hough p. 539.)

".........And notwithstanding in some places they have not of late named Nestorius, Theodorus and Deodorus, but do still continue to name Abraham, Narsai, Abba Barchauma, Johannan, Hormisda, and Michael ......."

Session V, Decree I (Hough p. 586).

"Wherefore instead of them he shall say,‘commemoramus quoque patres nostros sanctos veritatis doctores S. Cyrillum etc’ and though in some missals the names of Nestorius, Theodorus, and Deodorus are already left out, yet they do still remain in some, and the names of Abraham, Narcissus two of the ringleaders of that cursed sect are in all of them."

From the above passage it is clear that there were missals without heretical passages and the names of Nestor etc. Therefore it must be concluded that the Syrians were using those missals; but the Portuguese, to gainsay and to make known to the world that they converted the Syrians from Nestorian heresy, seem to have taken a missal which contained the names of Nestor etc., and corrected it according to their pretension. The authors of the Synod themselves admit that there were missals in Malabar without the names of Nestor, Theodorus etc, as we have seen above. And these were the missals used by them, though the Portuguese contend that those missals still contained some names of Nestorian Saints, such as Hormisdas, Abraham, Narsai, Micháel etc. But these contentions of the Portuguese indicate their ignorance, because the above mentioned personages Hormisdas etc., are still reckoned as saints among the Catholics of Babylon. (Vide p. 161).

The Bishop of Cochin in his recently published pamphlet ‘Subsidium Patrontus’ has reproduced from Gouvea the Latin version of the missal corrected by Dom Menezes with the specified notes of the corrections which took place. The author (of Subsidium) has been hallucinated in supposing that this would be the version of the missal which is in use at present (Subs. p. 16) among the Catholic Syrians of Malabar. But many of the original passages of the so called corrections made by Dom Menezes are still to be seen, as they were originally, in the present missal of the Catholic Syrians printed at Rome with the approbation of the Holy See. If the Rt. Rev. author had compared the Latin version with the Syriac original and the present missal of the Catholic Syrians he would have easily found that the present missal of the Catholic Syrians is different from that corrected by Dom Menezes. The author makes no mention of those missals which were in existence here without heretical passages before the Synod of Diamper though on the other hand he admits that the missal corrected by Dom Menezes was not printed for the use of the Syrians (Subs. p. 57). He supposes that if the present Missal of the Syrians would not agree with that of Dom Menezes it would be perhaps the cause of recent modifications, additions, or subtractions which must have taken place during last three centuries (Subs pp. 16, 56, 57, 58). But this surmise cannot be proved because no changes or additions have been made in the present Missal at least since a century and a half after it was printed. Even the decisions and decrees of the sacred congregation of Propaganda Fide dated Jan. 8th 1767, & Jan. 28th 1768, cited by the Rt. Rev. author himself clearly show (vide Subsidium Patranatus pp. 56-57.) that the missal entitled ‘Sacrum, Beatorum Apostolorum’ printed at Rome with the approbation of the Holy See for the use of the Catholic Syrians of Malabar is different from the so-called corrected Missal of Dom Menezes. It is therefore to be rightly concluded that the Missal used by the Syrians before and after the Synod of Diamper is different from that corrected by Dom Menezes and that the latter was never admitted to be in use by the Syrians.

We see in Session I, Decree IV (Hough Vol. p. 517.)

"We do admonish and command all Christians as well ecclesiastics as seculars gathered together in this place, to confess their sins with a true contrition for them, and all priests to say Mass, and others to receive the most Holy sacrament of the altar, beseeching our Lord with humble and devout prayers for good success to all that shall be treated of in this Synod: to which intent, there shall be two solemn Masses said in the Church every day during the session of the Synod, one of the Latins to the Holy Spirit, and the other of the Syrians to our Lady the Blessed Virgin Mary, whose praise and honour is to be particularly treated of."

From the above decree it is clear that,

(1). Dom Menezes would not and could not allow the Syrian priests and people, who were from all the Churches of Malabar, to celebrate Mass and communicate the Holy Eucharist if they were heretics.

(2). Dom Menezes would not and could not allow the priests to celebrate Holy Mass if their missals contained heretical passages.

(3). The Archbishop admonished and commanded the two above ordinations on the first day of the Synod, while the missals and breviaries were examined and corrected on the third day. (Vide Sess. 3. Decree 9.) It was indispensable to make corrections of the missals and breviaries previous to the opening of the Synod, if there were not other exemplaries of the missal in the possession of the Syrians in order that the holy services might not be celebrated in heretical books. It is therefore obvious from the arguments that the Missals used by the Syrians before the Synod and the Missal corrected by Dom Menezes were different.

Gouvea fol. 65 says :"To give execution to this decree and to provoke the others with his example to do the same, the Archbishop (Menezes) dressed in Pontificals, took off the mitre and knelt down before the major altar having the book of Holy Gospels, and putting the great silver cross with the holy wood (holy relics of the cross) touching the hands on the missal and the cross did the whole professien of faith and swore as others had to do; and having finished it sat down and delivered an exhortation to the people declaring to them the points of profession of Faith which he did : and the obligation that all had to swear obedience to Holy Roman Church. Having been finished it, in their swearing obedience a murmur was heard among the Christians and cathanars (priests) saying that they were Christians and that they had faith; How could they profess the faith showing that they had not it before. The Archbishop, having heard this told them that it was the obligation of every Christian to make the profession of faith once or many times when he is required or suspected to have any doubt on any of the points of faith: and he (Archbishop Menezes) was a Christian, Father and prelate of all the Christians of the East and yet, he did more than professing."

From the above passage it is clear that the Archbishop Menezes intended to make himself a profession of the Catholic faith in order to provoke or rather induce the Syrians assembled in the Synod of Diamper to make the same profession of faith.

(2) That they too being Christians (Catholics) holding the same faith they had no reason to make any profession of faith as if they had it not.24

(3) That the Archbishop argued that although he being a Christian, father and prelate of all the Christians (Catholics) in India, yet he has made the profession of the Faith and that it is necessary to all the Christians (Catholics) to make the profession of the Faith when they are required to do the same or suspected that they doubted any of the points of Faith. From these every right thinker will infer that the Syrians were Catholics as much as Archbishop Menezes was; and that they made the profession of the faith merely to obey Archbishop Menezes and to follow his example fulfilling the formality of the profession of the faith as it is usual to do in all Synods.

We read in Session III Decree VII (vide Hough p. 537) "Which is that there was one law of St. Thomas and another of St. Peter, which made two different and distinct Churches, and both immediately from Christ: and the one had nothing to do with the other; neither did the prelate of the one owe any obedience to the prelate of the other; and that they who followed the law of St. Peter, had endeavoured to destroy the law of St. Thomas, for which they had been punished by him: and which is a manifest error, schism, and heresy there being but one law to all Christians."

Here it must be noted that the authors of the Synod have committed some errors or misunderstandings in the way of their expression (see p. 33.) For Syrians never thought that there was one law of St. Thomas and another of St. Peter which make two distinct churches both immediately from Christ. The errors or misunderstandings consist in this that there were two different rites, customs or practices and laws of discipline between the Syrians and the Portuguese which they misunderstood as difference in doctrines or faith. The error consisted in their supposing that all who differed from them in rites or disciplines were considered heretics. It must be admitted that the Portuguese "had endeavoured to destroy" the Syrian rite, i.e., the discipline differing from that of theirs. We observe also that even Nestorians admit the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.

"That they who followed the law of St. Peter, had endeavoured to destroy the law of St. Thomas, for which they had been punished by him." The Syrians are still sorry to see, even in these days of liberty and civilization in every respect, some persons are endeavouring to abolish the Syrian rite here which is alien to theirs. Would to God that they are not punished !

Though Archbishop Menezes condemned in 1599 all the Chaldean Patriarchs and Bishops as Nestorian heretics the fathers of the Provincial Council of Goa in 1585 had admitted that there were Catholic Chaldean Patriarchs and Bishops. One of the decrees runs as follows :-

"Translation of extract from the proceedings of the Third Provincial Council of Goa A.D. 1585."

Third session

‘The matters of the Archbishopric of Angamale and the Christianity which is called of St. Thomas in parts of Malabar.

Tenth Decree.

"That those who come from Chaldea shall present letters to the Archbishop Primate of India. Forasmuch as our Lord has said in His Holy Gospel that he who enters the sheepfold not by the door but by some other way is a thief and a robber, and forasmuch as some persons have come from Chaldea to this Church and this Christianity and have introduced themselves as Bishops, although in truth they were not so, as afterwards appeared, and have caused in it schism and troubles and as the same thing may happen again; it appears to the Council that henceforth no man can be received as a Bishop or Catholic Prelate or approved, unless he first presents letters addressed to the Archbishop of Goa, as Primate of India and the East, and unless these letters come from His Holiness, or from a Patriarch who is a Catholic and giving obedience to the Roman Church, and is approved by it, as formerly did the Archbishop D. Mar Abraham, when he came appointed Archbishop of Angamale by Pope Pius IV. of happy memory, and he who does not present such letters will be regarded as an Intruder and as such will be dragged out of the Church: and the Council humbly begs His Holiness to approve this and to order the Patriarch of Chaldea to whom this pertains to issue orders likewise as this is most important for the good of this Christianity and of the Holy Roman Church.

Taken from the Bullarium Patronatus Portugalliae, Olisifone: The National Press 1872." p. 73. (Vide Mackenzie pp. 94-95.)

The Bishop of Cochin in foot-note 2 of his ‘Subsidium Patronatus’ page 8 says that John Sulacca was the first Catholic Chaldean Patriarch of Babylon. But the history of the Chaldeans and the documents as yet discovered in the Vatican Archives prove at least that Mar Sabar - Jesu and Mar Jaballaha, both Chaldean Patriarchs were in communion with Rome. The former obtained his confirmation from Pope Innocent IV. in 1248 and the latter from Pope Benedictus XI. in 1304. Mar Timotheus, the Chaldean Archbishop of Cyprus was received into the communion of Rome by Pope Eugene IV, in 1445. (Vide Giamil pp. 1,2,3,4,5-11.) We therefore appeal to the unbiased readers to judge all the misrepresentations of the authors of the Synod of Diamper; and other Portuguese authors whether they themselves have not contradicted themselves.

The authors of the Synod go on so far as to venture to say that the Malabar Church before the Synod of Diamper admitted some Protestant doctrines, such as, that they denied the real presence of the body of Christ in the Eucharist, that they were unwilling to reverence the images of the Portuguese and that they impugned the supreme power of the Roman Pontiff; and that they knew nothing of confession or extreme - unction, that matrimony was not considered to be a sacrament and some other traditions of the Latin Church. But Assemani from his long study of Nestorian ecclesiastical matters contends that even the Nestorians held all Roman doctrines, even the Primacy of the Roman Pontiffs, and went astray only upon the Nestorian heresy. (Vide Mackenzie p. 73.) From what is said above we are obliged to conclude that the authors of the Synod of Diamper have rashly judged the Syrians as such heretics, perhaps from any heretical book which they found among them, and not from the practice observed by the Syrians in Malabar.

The Bishop of Cochin, in his ‘Subsidium Patronatus’ pp. 9-10, has reproduced a Latin text of a brief by Clement VIII. dated 27th January 1595. He says that this was taken among others from the Archives of the diocese of Cochin. But we observe, as it is seen in Mackenzie page 67, note 52, that there was no original Latin text of the brief in question in the Archives of the diocese of Cochin except a Portuguese version of the same, till the year 1901. The author does not explain wherein he discovered it. Even the same author in his first pamplet ‘Some Elucidations’ edited 1903 (page 24) admits the same when he says ‘Besides it would be no difficult matter to see the original Latin briefs in the Vatican Archives.’ Now the author says in the preface of his ‘Subsidium Patronatus’ that the original Latin is reserved in the Archives of the diocese of Cochin. We, however, do not deny the possibility of such a brief as it was easy to be issued from the erroneous reports of the Portuguese of those days.

We shall afterwards clear, if time allows us, in a seperate view all the misunderstandings of the author of ‘Subsidium Patronatus,’ especially regarding the corrections of the Malabar Liturgy as he calls it.

Some Jacobites of this country cry out in their organs against the Roman Catholic Church, stating that She, in imitation of the false prophet Mahomed who propagated the religion with sword and money, made use of the Portuguese sword and money to bring the Syrian nation to the obedience of Rome, and it is a noble duty incumbent on all Syrians, to shake off the yoke of Rome, whenever any opportunity offers itself, and try their best, never more to submit to that which was violently imposed upon their forefathers. They contend that the Syrian Church in Malabar founded by St. Thomas, the Apostle, was never in union with the Roman Church before the Synod of Diamper and thus attempt to refute the Catholicity and Supremacy of the Church of Rome. They hold the indifferentism in the matter of the Church saying that one Church is as good as the other for salvation whether Jacobite or Nestorian, Russian or Roman. This theory is much in favour of their separation from the Church of Rome. They say they hold the Catholic faith ever since the time of the Apostle and they defend the faith in which they now remain. These false assertions and calumnious misrepresentations, we suppose, are likely to be more or less maintained by the publications of the Portuguese to the great dishonour of the Catholic Church. They both agree in one point, namely, that the Roman Catholic faith was introduced in Malabar by the Portuguese.25

They (Jacobites) prove their assertions from the following historians.

Rev. James Hough, a Protestant minister, in his history of ‘the Christianity in India’ says, (Vol. I, p. 151) "We may now be prepared to appreciate the wisdom of Divine Providence, in closing the continent of India against the inhabitants of Europe, during the rise and progress of the Papal domination ........

The Protection afforded to this establishment by heathen and Mahomedan rulers, presented a perfect contrast to the intolerance of Rome towards all persons and Churches whose creed differed from her own. This is the admission of a Romanist whose candour does him honour. Alluding to violent measures adopted by his Church to reduce all others to her sway, the Abbe Fleury has remarked - "what great loss Christianity suffered in Asia is very manifest. If the Saracens had held the same principles which were received among the Latin Christians of these times, they would not have suffered one Christian to live in their dominions. But this nation, though guilty of various crimes and oppressions, yet judged it to be an act of too much iniquity and cruelty whilst the Romanists accounted it a pious deed to destroy by fire and sword all who were of a different religion from themselves, and refused to be converted. (p. 152)"

Hough continues, p. 240-241: Antony Gouvea also, a Portuguese writer who labours hard to persuade his readers, but without an attempt to prove his assertions, that the Indian Church was at its commencement subject to Rome admits, nevertheless that after the destruction of Mylapore, they were so much in want of ecclesiastics that they sent for them to the Patriarch of Babylon, who consecrated and despatched three Bishops, one for India, the second for Socotora, and the third for southern China. Their names were, Mar Dona, Mar Thoma, and Mar Jonnam."

On page 269 of the work of the same author a passage runs as follows:- "The Mahomedan faith has been appropriately entitled, ‘The Religion of the Sword’! and with equal propriety may we so designate the religion of these belligerent friars. The Portuguese writers give an account of one of their Missionaries, Fernando Vinagre, who was as prompt in the field of battle as at the baptismal font."

Another protestant historian, Rev. Alex. J. D. D’Orsey in his ‘Portuguese Discoveries and Dependencies’ edited London 1893 says on p. 151: "Prior to the sixth century the Pope’s jurisdiction was extremely limited. He asserted no secular authority; and his efforts were bent on promoting the extension of spiritual influence."

On page 158 he says, "In our former pages it has been made evident that the true ecclesiastical head of these Christians of St. Thomas, was the Patriarch of Mosul, resident at Seleucia, on the distant bank of the Tigris. An examination of the testimony so laboriously collected by Gouvea, Asseman, Renaudot, La Croze, and others, clearly proves that these Christians had from the earliest ages, acknowledged the Bishops of the Church in Persia as their Primates. And, though two of the writers just named are, as Romanists, most anxious to show a different origin for the Church of Malabar, they have utterly failed in establishing the desired resemblance in doctrine, discipline and ceremony to the distinctive peculiarities of Romanist Church; for instance, the Roman Service has always been in the Latin language, whereas, the Malabar prayers were constantly recited in the Syrian tongue.

Hough (Vol. II.) on page 8 says: that "these precautions will not be deemed superfluous or unimportant, by those, who know how little the papists have scrupled to contradict their own statements, and to disavow their very acts and deeds when cited against them."

The acts and decrees of the Synod of Diamper are of no inconsiderable value as an historic record of the faith and practice both of the Roman and Syrian Churches, at the close of the sixteenth century. No Romanist can dispute an exposition of his religious tenets which was drawn up with so much care by an Archbishop of his Church and that, too, for the express purpose of establishing his religion in India; an exposition which was also published to the world with the sanction of the highest papal authorities in Europe. And with respect to the Syrians, these decrees contain the best, indeed, it may be said the only account extant of the doctrines and customs of their Church at the time of their publication. The vicissitudes through which that injured people have since passed; the unsparing hand with which the Archbishop afterwards committed to the flames,26 every document he could find that contained a sentiment opposed to the pretentions 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 possible, to ascertain the character of their Church, at that early period of their history. Seeing that the only knowledge we have of their creed and practices at that time is derived from the history of this Synod, Doctor 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." (Gedde’s history, p. 209 and Hough Vol. ii pp. 10, 11, 12.)

D.D’Orsey says on page 168 thus :-

"Nothing that the Jesuits could do, by the threats or promises could induce these young men to forsake the faith of their fathers, to preach against the Syrian Bishops, to alter their Prayer books, or to omit the name of the Patriarch of Seleucia.".... And on page 176 he continues, "These repeated tyrannies of the Portuguese in the Indies of dragging ancient Bishops thus out of their own country, and diocese and tumbling them about the world, I cannot but reckon among those violent injustices for which God has punished them so visibly." These are the quaint words in which (Geddes) the translator or rather paraphraser of Gouvea’s "Jornada" expresses his opinion of the conduct of the Portuguese to their Christian brethren: and the reader will find this judgement corroborated by another well- known historian. Similar violence was exercised in their method of converting the heathen."

"D’Orsey (p. 223.)says: "The reading of these decrees and their acceptance by the Synod concluded the first day’s work. No public disturbance interrupted the harmony of the proceedings; but there was a strong feeling of dissatisfaction amongst all the Cathanars, who still retained attachment to the Church of their fathers. They complained, and justly, that they were being severed in the most unceremonious manner from communion with their Patriarch, and forced into obedience with a branch of the Church in which they had no concern. Still these feeble murmurings of the struggling captives produced no result."

We leave to the Portuguese authors to refute the non-catholic views above referred to. But we on our part, have reproduced above many valuable documents proving the Orthodoxy of the Malabar Church in all ages and we shall see also a particular sketch on the Supremacy of the Roman Pontiffs, at the end of this Pamphlet.

(We reproduce here the following account from the Madras Catholic Directory and General Annual Register of the year 1862, published under the patronage of Rt. Rev. Dr. John Fennelly, Bishop of Castoria and Vicar Apostolic of Madras.) (Vide pp. 98-110, and 126-129.)

A few years after, at the request of the King of Portugal, he was translated from Angamally, where the Portuguese had no authority, to Cranganore where they had a settlement: and, to give greater honor to the translation, Cranganore was made an Archbishopric ad honorem.

After Francis D’Roza, who died in 1617, there were in succession three other Jesuit Bishops in Cranganore, Jerome Xavier, Stephen D. Brito and Francis Garzias.

The town of Cranganore being situated not more than five Leagues from Cochin, territorial disputes soon sprung up between the Bishops, and Pope Paul V. by a bull dated 3rd December 1609, made Cannanore the Southern boundery of the diocese of Goa, giving to the diocese of Cochin all places within 30 miles of the sea coast from Cannanore Southward to Cape Comorin, and thence Eastward and Northward along the coast of Coromandel as far as Negapatam, except the town and parish of Cranganore. To Cranganore was given the town and parish of that name with the territory of Mysore and the interior of Southern India as far as the borders of the diocese of Mylapore.

In the year 1640, the people of Portugal became so dissatisfied with the bad government of the Spanish Philips, that they rose up like one man to protest with one voice against the multiplied wrongs and consequent decline of their common country, and by a revolution, which cost very little blood, placed the Duke of Braganza on the Portuguese throne under the title of John IV. Nearly thirty years were allowed to pass away, before diplomatic relations were established between the Braganza dynasty and the Holy See. In this long interval most of the dioceses of Portugal and India became vacant, and remained so. On the death of Francis de Martyribus in 1652, the See of Goa remained vacant for 20 years.

The clergy of Goa were then precipitated into the lowest depths of religious degradation. The poor were compelled to labour gratis for the Church: immoderate fines were imposed on such as absented themselves from Mass : women and aged persons were chastised with a ratan on every trifling occasion: the Friars, who composed the Chapter, oppressed the secular clergy: many poor people were excluded from a participation of the Sacraments under the pretext of their being too rude to comprehend the mystery of the Blessed Eucharist: the viaticum was never given to the poor, and only taken, when demanded, to the houses of the rich : converts from Heathenism were baptised without being required to give up heathenish practices: compulsive measures were employed to bring Heathens to baptism: Heathens were permitted on payment of a small fee to offer up their heathenish sacrifices in the church.

A few Christians at Goa, who still retained a proper sense of the dignity of religion, furnished a long catalogue of complaints of this kind comprising 21 different heads, to Pope Alexander VII. who wrote a charitable reprimand to the clergy of Goa on the 18th of January 1658.

Eleven years had passed away, after Pope Alexander VII. had expressed his displeasure in all charity and meekness at the abuses, which had crept in in amongst the clergy of the vacant See at Goa, when information was communicated to Pope Clement IX. that the gentle reproof of Pope Alexander was utterly disregarded by the clergy of Goa, and that the old abuses remained still unabated. Whereupon Pope Clement IX. issued a Brief dated 13th September 1669, calling upon the clergy of Goa in the most earnest manner to correct the abuses, which were so long a subject of complaint and scandal to the faithful of Goa and the adjacent islands.

Whilst the religious affairs of Portugal were thus neglected, its political condition at home and abroad would appear to be no better. The Brazils were already lost before the Revolution. So was also Cochin, and the island of Ormus near the Persian Gulf. In the very year of the Revolution, Malacca was taken by the Dutch, after it had been subject to the Portuguese for 30 years. In 1637 the profitable trade of the Portuguese with the empire of Japan was extinguished through the intrigues of the Dutch, who then gained a monopoly, which they have since preserved to the exclusion of all other European nations. In 1656 the Dutch flag was hoisted over Colombo, and thereby put an end to the Portuguese power in the island of Ceylon. The winds and the waves also contributed to the downfall of Portugal. A large fleet laden with Indian produce was lost. Such a long catalogue of disasters, though far from including all the calamities which befell Portugal at this period, was quite enough to reduce to national bankruptcy a nation possessed of greater internal resources than the little kingdom of Portugal.

The Chinese missions in those days were brought to great destitution, and Pope Alexander VII. in 1658 appointed Francis Pallu Vicar Apostolic of Tonquin, and Administrator Apostolic of five neighbouring provinces of China. In the same year His Holiness appointed Peter Lambert Vicar Apostolic of Cochin-China, and Administrator Apostolic of the Island of Hainan and other neighbouring islands besides the four nearest provinces on the Chinese Coast. Two years after, His Holiness appointed Ignatius Cotolendy Vicar Apostolic of Nankin, and Administrator Apostolic of Chantong, Pekin and Chansi with Tartary and the Chorea. So began the series of Vicars Apostolic in China. Their districts were subsequently subdivided, and their number increased. At the present day we reckon in China and its dependencies with Cambodia. Tonquin and Cochin-China, 833,000 Christians, 30 Vicars Apostolic, 196 European Priests and 428 Native Priests.

In the year 1655 the Christians of Saint Thomas,27 singularly prone to their errors, formed a conspiracy to set aside Garzias, and bound themselves by oath never more to submit to a Jesuit Bishop. The Nestorian Patriarch thereupon sent them a Bishop named Ahatallas.28 He fell into the hands of the Portuguese, and was cited before the inquisition, which was introduced into Goa in 1560, where he was found guilty of heresy, and put to death by fire. When this news was brought to the Christians of Saint Thomas, they were exceedingly enraged against the Portuguese, and determined to hold no more communication with them. Wishing to have some one, whom they might recognize as a Bishop, they had recourse to a new ceremony of episcopal consecration, and they got 12 Priests to impose hands on their Arch-deacon.

When these proceedings were made known at Rome, Pope Alexander VII seeing that his immediate and special interference was required to bring the Christians of Saint Thomas to a proper sense of their duty, and seeing that Portuguese missionaries were no longer suited to the temper of the times, sent out four Italian Carmelites, whose mission proved eminently successful. Upwards of 60,000 of the rebellious Syro-Nestorians were in less than a year united again to the Holy See. In the following year (1659) one of the four Carmelites was appointed Vicar Apostolic: and so began the series of Carmelite Vicars Apostolic on the Malabar Coast, which has come down to the present day.

In 1663 Cochin was taken by the Dutch, who for nearly 20 years gave no more toleration to the Italians than to the Portuguese; but the Carmelites, whilst in expectation of better times they resided outside the dominions of the Dutch, contrived to manage their affairs within the Dutch settlements through the agency of native priests.29

On the 10th of April 1669 Custodius de Pinho, an Indian Brahmin, who got his education at Rome in the College of the Propaganda, was appointed Vicar Apostolic of the Great Mogul, Adelkhan and Golconda, in succession to another Bramin, who died at Rome the same year. On the 20th September 1696, Custodius de Pinho was succeeded by Peter Paul a S. Francisco, a discalced Carmelite: and so began the series of Carmelite Vicars Apostolic at Surat and Bombay, which has continued to our own times. It is only a few years ago, that the Carmelite mission of Bombay was given to the Jesuits.

The Portuguese Government manifested so much ill will at the appointment of Peter Paul, that instead of going to his vicariate by Portugal and Goa, which was then the readiest way, he went by Poland, Moscow, and the Caspian Sea, which was a laborious journey of three years.

To the Goa priests, who wished to have all the Eastern missions exclusively for themselves, and were exceedingly displeased at the recent arrangements of the Pope for the Spiritual supervision of China, Malabar, and other parts of India, the Goa Inquisition afforded a convenient instrument for the annoyance of the newly appointed Vicars Apostolic.

The Commissary of Siam, an officer of the Inquisition, had the audacity to demand from Peter Lambert the exhibition of his Bulls; and when the Bishop refused, as being subject to the immediate authority of the Holy See, the brave Commissary of the Inquisition posted him up on the doors of the Churches of Siam as a person of suspicious faith, and commanded the people of Siam to hold no communication with him. Peter Lambert usually resided at Siam, and devoted himself principally to the training and education of native priests for the Chinese missions.

Another officer of the Goa Inquisition ordered a missionary apostolic of Cambodia to be sent a prisoner to Macao under a charge of heresy; and the poor missionary, after having suffered imprisonment without trial at Macao for five months, was removed to the prison of the Inquisition at Goa, whither another missionary apostolic had been sent not long before.

Whereupon Pope Clement X. in a Brief dated 10th November 1673 severely rebuked the Inquisitors of Goa, and declared all Vicars and missionaries, Apostolic, then residing in, or thereafter to be sent to China, Cochin-China Tonquin, Cambodia and other places of the East Indies, to be free from the jurisdiction of the Goa Inquisition in all places, "which are not under the temporal dominion of the King of Portugal. " The words of the original are- in iis regionibus, quoe temporali Regis Portugalliae dominio non subsunt. Pope Clement also wrote a letter to the new Archbishop of Goa (for the see was not then vacant) forbidding the Archbishop and his officials under the severest penalties to presume in future to exercise any act of jurisdiction over Vicars or missionaries Apostolic "outside the temporal dominion of the king of Portugal." The words of the original are- ne in posterum adversus vicarios apostolicos eorumque missionarios actum ullum jurisdictionis extra dominium temporale Regis Portugalliae exercere audeant.

Notwithstanding these explicit declarations of the Pope, the officials of the Goa Inquisition did not cease to give annoyance and vexatious opposition to the vicars apostolic under the connivance of the Archbishop and Chapter of Goa.

When the Capuchin mission was established in Madras in 1642, thirty-six years after the erections of the bishopric of St. Thomè, the pastoral solicitude of the Bishop and priest of the Royal patronage was confined almost exclusively to the few Portuguese merchants and Portuguese Government servants, who resided in the immediate vicinity of the Cathedral of St. Thomas. It is a remarkable fact, that in addition to the Christians employed in the service of the East India Company in Fort St. George and others who resided in the town of Madras at that time but a small patnam, the Capuchins were permitted without molestation to take charge of the few Christians among the boatmen who then resided at Chepauk within two miles of the St. Thomé Cathedral. In less than 200 years the Capuchin congregation in Madras, Vepery and Royapooram, (the boatmen having been removed by Government to this latter place about 60 years ago), has been multiplied so as to embrace nearly 20,000 souls: whilst the bishopric of Malacca (where however a Bishop of the patronage has never yet shown his face except to look in on his way to or from China) is unable unto this day to reckon a congregation of more than 3,000 souls. The bishopric of St. Thomé could not reckon so many until the suppression of the Jesuits in 1773, when several congregations north and south along the coast of Coromandel, after having been planted, and for many years watered, by the sweat and labor of the Jesuits, were summarily given in charge by Pope Clement XIV. to the Bishop of St. Thomè. It was then also for the first time that the Bishop of Cochin crept up the Ghauts to take possession of some of the Jesuit missions. These acquisitions were sanctioned by legitimate authority, and are therefore free from blame; but it was not always so.

We might here reckon up, if it were to our purpose, a goodly catalogue of obstructions and aggressions, unwarranted and unwarrantable, on the part of Portuguese incumbents; but we shall content ourselves with the passing mention of one event, which occurred at our own doors, and is in the recollection of many who are yet alive.

After the Capuchins had labored in the town of Madras for more than 170 years, one of them became disorderly and was suspended by the superior. Immediately some bad people in the town with more money than piety set about building St. John’s church for the use of the suspended priest. By the time the church was finished the priest was happily restored to peace and friendship with the church of God and with his brethren. But not so the projectors of ecclesiastical insubordination. Assuming to themselves quasi-papal authority they brought a priest from the bishopric of the patronage, and set him over a Capuchin congregation. The spirit of insubordination ran so high in those days, that the Capuchins were ousted from the church of the Assumption (also, within the town of Madras), and might taking place of right, another Portuguese priest was inducted there. The bad example of the town’s people was followed by the boatmen of Royapooram, and they too ousted the Capuchins, and brought a Goa priest into their church. About the year 1830 the Bishop of Mylapore suspended the Royapooram priest, but the suspended priest kept possession of the church and presbytery, and gave his valuable services to the boatmen for upwards of six years, when he was induced to give possession to the Right Rev. Dr. O’Connor.

King John IV. died in 1656, leaving two sons, Alonzo and Pedro, as different from each other in mind and body as it was possible to conceive, the elder scarcely 13 years of age a simpleton, and the younger adorned with the highest mental and bodily endowments. Contrary to the advice of the Queen mother, who understood his incapacity, the simpleton was placed upon the throne. While the Queen mother lived, she conducted the affairs of the kingdom as Regent with incomparable ability. By marrying her daughter, the princess Catharine, to Charles II King of Great Britain, she procured for Portugal the protection of the English fleets, with reinforcements of some thousands of horse and foot. After her death, when the simpleton had been borne with for a year, his brother Pedro locked him up, and assumed the royal authority as Regent. In this he was instigated by Alonzo’s wife, a lady of first-rate abilities and of the highest accomplishments, who hated Alonzo for his imbecility. When Alonzo was set aside, the Queen Consort claimed a divorce from him on the ground of his being incapacitated for matrimonial engagements by reason of natural importence, and in support of her claim she forwarded to the Chapter of Lisbon (the See like many others in Portugal being then vacant) a letter acknowledging the fact in the handwriting of Alonzo himself. The Chapter of Lisbon after due inquiry declared her marriage with Alonzo null and void, and she got married to Pedro the Regent.

While matters were in this state, Cardinal Vendocini, who was uncle to the Ex-queen, was sent by the Pope as Legate a latere to France. He profited of his commission, the terms of which were (as usual in such cases) sufficiently ample, to go to Portugal, to see if he could be of service to his niece. He examined the divorce given by the Chapter of Lisbon, and confirmed it by his legatine authority. Don Pedro thereupon, encouraged by the Cardinal, sent an ambassador to Rome to seek the establishment of friendly relations with the Holy See. The Pope referred the marriage case for investigation to the President of the Portuguese Inquisition, and on receiving a favorable report, declared himself satisfied.

Thus were diplomatic and friendly relations established between the Holy See and the Braganza dynasty upwards of 29 years after the accession of that line to the throne of Portugal. For a whole year after, there was nothing but Bishop-making in Portugal.

In the year 1690, at the request of Don Pedro II. Pope Alexander VIII. erected the bishoprics of Tonquin and Nankin, and granted the patronage of both to the Portuguese crown on condition that neither of them should ever be left vacant longer than a year, and that each of them should receive an annual endowment from the Portuguese Treasury of 500 Portuguese Cruciats and 400 ducats of gold.

Immediately on the appointment of the new Bishops, they claimed almost all China for the limits of their dioceses, and everywhere gave trouble to the Vicars Apostolic. Whereupon Pope Innocent XII. by a Brief dated 16th October 1699, declared the diocese of Pekin to be confined within the limits of the provinces of Pekin, Shantong and Leaotong; and the diocese of Nankin to be confined within the provinces of Nankin and Honan; and His Holiness placed the remaining districts of the Chinese Empire under the jurisdiction of the Vicars Apostolic.

Don Pedro II. died on the 9th December 1706, and was succeeded by his son Don John V. who was then little more than 17 years of age. By a close alliance with Great Britain Portugal enjoyed during his reign a period of comparative prosperity, and her commerce somewhat revived. He founded a Patriarchate at Lisbon and lavished upon it a regal endowment. By the magnificence of his monastic buildings he sought to eclipse the splendour of Rome. Absolute in the state, he was ambitious of supremacy in the church, and did not hesitate to infringe upon her discipline, and the rights of the Holy See. He died on the 31st of July 1750, and was succeeded by his son Don Joseph, whose reign was marked by great national calamities, and public wrongs. Through the bad influence acquired by the prime minister Carvallo Mello, afterwards Marquis of Pombal, over the king, the scaffold flowed with noble and often with innocent blood, and an immense amount of property was confiscated. In November 1755 an earthquake destroyed one half of the city of Lisbon, and buried 30,000 persons under the ruins. Two hours after the earthquake a general conflagration broke out, and raged with terrific violence for three days, until Lisbon was completely desolated. Gabriel Malagrida, a Jesuit’ at the venerable age of 66, who spent nearly half his life in the Brazils, attributed the earthquake to the crimes of the people, and thereby gave great offence to the philosophic and Jansenistic party, and most of all to the Marquis of Pombal, who thought that natural events have no connection with the dispensations of Providence. On the 11th of January 1759 Malagrida was arrested under a charge of conspiring with the Duke d’Aveiro and the Marquis of Tavora to take away the king’s life. The others were declared guilty and put to death, a few days after, with the principal members of their families; but Malagrida was kept in prison. After more than two years imprisonment, he was brought before the Inquisition on a charge of heresy, and was unanimously acquitted by the Inquisitor General (who was the king’s brother) and all his assessors. Whereupon the Marquis of Pombal, using that unaccountable influence, which he possessed over the king, set aside the Inquisitors and appointed Inquisitors of his own with Paul Carvallo, the prime minister’s brother, at their head. Malagrida was then declared guilty of heresy, handed over to the secular arm’ and burned alive on the 21st September 1761. Several thousand persons are said to have fallen victims to Pombal’s cruelty and ambition. In one day 800 Jesuits were cast in extreme destitution on the hospitality of the papal shores. In the general suppression of the order, which occurred soon after, Pombal is said to have been mainly instrumental. The death of the king in 1777 was the fall of the minister, and his fall removed the veil from all his wicked deeds. The prisons were thrown open by the young Queen Maria Francesca, and 800 persons were set at liberty, many of whom were supposed to be dead, among them was Michel del Annunciata, Bishop of Coimbra, whose long beard and emaciated figure attracted general observation on his first appearance at Court after 9 years’ residence in a dungeon, where a single friend or acquaintance could not find him. His crime was the condemnation of some books, which the prime minister wished to introduce into the public schools.

Maria Francesca re-established friendly relations with the Holy See, which had been interrupted during the two last years of Pombal’s administration. In the year 1792, she exhibited symptoms of mental alienation, which afterwards proved incurable, and her son, the prince of Brazil, was appointed Regent, and after his mother’s death in 1816, became John VI king of Portugal, Brazil and Algarves. His lot was cast in troublesome times. The ambition of his sons Pedro and Miguel no less than the degeneracy of his nation brought him to grief. In 1801, he signed a treaty with France, by which he engaged to pay 2,50,00000 francs, and to give up his possessions in Guiana. In 1807, when the French army under Junot was at the gates of Lisbon, Napoleon threatening the dismemberment of the kingdom, he sought refuge in his American possessions, where he kept his court for upwards of 15 years. Meantime a regency was established in Portugal under British protection, and the French were defeated in all their hostile designs upon the kingdom.

Page to be continued............
(Please click for next portion)

  Book 1| Book 2 | Book 3| Book 4