This colonization of Nestorianism, however, was not begini by the emperor's illiberal policj'. It had taken rise much earlier. Presbyter Ibas (q. v.), for the simple purpose of giving the Persian Christians an intelligent account of the controversy, had written a letter to IMares, bishop of Hardoshir, in Persia, shortly after the union of patriarch John of Antiocli and of Cyril, in which he clearly established the merits of the controversy, con- demning what was amiss in Cyril, and commending only what he believed worthy of support in Nestorius, but yet evincing greater sympathy for the latter. So much moderation did Ibas exhibit in his letter, and so earnestly did he plead for peace in the Church, that the missive was not without influence. He had besides furnished Syriac translations of the works of Diodorus of Tarsus and of Theodore of Mopsuestia; and thus having an opportunity to examine for themselves into the merits of the controvers}-, the Assyrian and Persian Christians were numerously won over to Nestorius. Further strength was given to Nestorianism, especially in Persia, bj' the expulsion of the teachers from Edessa, where Nestorius's views had found willing and enthu- siastic exponents. Among those whom the Persians gained over for their own Church by this intolerant policy of bishop Eabulas of Edessa we notice particu- larly Barsumas, who, as bishop or metropolitan of Nisi- bis (A.D. 435-489), contributed in no small degree to the propagation of Nestorian views in Persia and the reduction of the Cyrillites. Supported by Nerses (q. v.) the leper, also driven out of Edessa, Barsumas founded a new theological school at Nisibis. He also used his in- fluence with the king of Persia to have him confirm the Persian Christians in their aversion to the Cyrillian Coun- cil of Ephesus, and in their adhesion to the Antiochian and Nestorian theology ; and he even so far controlled king Feroze that this monarch expelled those Chris- tians who had espoused the Cyrillian views, and set Nestorians in their place, putting them in possession of the principal seat of ecclesiastical authority in Persia, the see of Seleucia, which from that time to our own day has always been filled by the patriarch of the Nes- torians. Indeed, such was the zeal and success of Bar- sumas that the Nestorians who still remain in Chaldaea, Persia, Assyria, and the adjacent countries, consider him really their parent and founder. He certainly contrib- uted much, not only to the upbuilding of Nestorianism in Persia, but to its spread into Egypt, Syria, Arabia, India, Tartars-, and China, whence went his theological students from the school at Nisibis. " The Nestorians," says Mosheim {Eccles. Hist, i, 93), " after they had ob- tained a fixed residence in Persia, and had located the VI.-P p p
head of their sect at Seleucia, were as successful as they were industrious in disseminating their doctrines in the countries lying without the Roman empire. It appears from unquestionable documents, still existing, that there were numerous societies in all parts of Persia, in India, in Armenia, in Arabia, in Syria, and in other countries, under the jiu-isdiction of the patriarch of Seleucia during this (the Gth) century." Of the 7th century he says {ibid, i, 499), " The Christian religion was in this cen- tury diff'used beyond its former bounds, both in the East- ern and Western countries. In the East, the Nestorians, with incredible industry and perseverance, labored to propagate it from Persia, Syria, and India among the barbarous and savage nations inhabiting the deserts and the remotest shores of Asia. In particular, the vast empire of China was enlightened by their zeal and in- dustry with the light of Christianity." In A.D. 498 a Church council convened at Seleucia, and by this body the Nestorian doctrine was made the faith "of the Per- sian Church. The dogmas then adopted amount to what follows : 1. That in the Saviour of the world there were two hypostases, or persons, of which the one was divine, or the Eternal AVord, and the other human, or the man Christ Jesus ; 2. That these two hypostases had only one outward appearance ; 3. That the union be- tween the Son of God and the Son of IMan was formed in the moment of the Virgin's conception, and is never to be dissolved ; 4. That this iniion was not of nature or person, but of will and affection; 5. That Christ was to be carefully distinguished from God, who dwelt in him as in a temple; 6. That Mary was to be called the mother of Christ (XpitTron'/cot), and not the mother of God {Qiotokoq). How far Nestorius himself main- tained these vie\\-s will never clearlj' appear, as his own expositions of Christology are only extant in fragments, and they even are full of contradictions; but certainly the doctrine as here laid down by the Council of Seleu- cia involves a denial of the unity of Christ's character. '• The Nestorian Christ," says Dr. Shedd, in his History of Christian Doctrine, "is two persons — one divine, and one human. The important distinction between a 'nat- ure' and a ' person' is not observed, and the consequence is that there are two separate and diverse selves in Jesus Christ. Instead of a blending of the two natures into only one self, the Nestorian scheme places two selves side by side, and allows only a moral and sympathetic union between them. The result is that the acts of each nature derive no character from the qualities of the other. There is no divine humiliation, because the hu- manity is confessedly the seat of humiliation, and the humanity is by itself, unblended in the unity of a com- mon self-consciousness. And there is no exaltation of the humanity, because the divinity is confessedly the source of the exaltation, and this also is insulated and isolated for the same reason. There is God, and there is man ; but there is no God-man."