1 Within the limits of this paper it is impossible to give more than an indication of the nature of the changes which result from our new knowledge of the Orient, and all the statements are tentative. Nor have I attempted to furnish detailed proofs of the various statements, as I hope they will appear in the near future in the work I am preparing, The Oriental Despot. Vol. I, (Proleaomena: the Regnum Dei). Some points I have already dealt with in articles: “The Oriental Despot,”“The Meaning of the Cross,” and “The Re-emergence of the Arian Controversy ” in the Anglican Theological Review, X (1928), 238–249Google Scholar; XII, (1930), 411–22; X (1929), 11–22, respectively. My work here has been supplemented by two works, from different angles. von Gall, A. F., Basileia Tou Theou, (Heidelberg 1926)Google Scholar whose work traces the continuity of the idea, particularly in its eschatological sense, from the background of Persian religion; and Frick's, R. essay Die Geschichte des Reich-Gottes-Gedankens in der alten Kirche bis ew Origenes und Augustin, Beih. z. Z. N-T. W. 6. (Giessen, 1928).Google Scholar Nor should I fail to acknowledge a pioneer work in this field, Robertson, A., Regnum Dei, (Bampton Lectures) Oxford, 1901.Google Scholar It is impossible here to give a complete survey of the literature, so I have confined myself to indicating the main works which mark the critical points in the development of this revision at their proper place, but I cannot close this note without a reference to the debt of the Church historian in this field to the work of Professor F. C. Burkitt.

2 Reference should also be made to the excellent article of DrDebevoise, Neil, “Parthian Problems,” A. J. S. L. XLVII (1931), pp. 73–82Google Scholar, particularly the last page, “Christianity has generally been studied as if its early development took place entirely within the Roman Empire, but ‘Parthians and Medes and Elamites and the dwellers of Mesopotamia’ were among those who listened to Peter at Pentecost.”

3 Rawlinson, G., The Sixth Monarchy, Oxford, 1872Google Scholar, Praef.

4 To Bury's plan of the C. A. H. should be added Eduard Meyer's Geschichte des Altertums.

5 The Hellenistic Age and the History of Civilization by Bury, J. B. and others, (Cambridge 1923), pp. 14–15.Google Scholar To this quotation may be added the following quotation from the Preface to the Authorised Version, from Burkitt, F. C., Early Eastern Christianity, (London. 1900), p. xiiGoogle Scholar. “S. Chrysostome that lived in S. Hieromes time, giveth evidence with him: The doctrine of S. John (saith he) did not in such sort (as the Philosophers did) vanish away: but the Syrians, Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Ethiopians and infinite other nations being barbarous people, translated it into their (mother) tongue, and have learned to be (true) Philosophers, he meaneth Christians.”

6 cf. Cumont, Fr., Les Religions Orientales (2d. ed.) Paris, 1928, p. 234Google Scholar, cf. pp. 220, 251f. It is possible to view this point as the climax of Diocletian's medism. His policy of the separation of the military and the revenue functions and placing them under separate officers is the system attributed to Cyrus, and it culminates in later years in the division of the amīr and the 'āmil, the general or military governor and the officer of the dīwānī (exchequer). The second stage is seen in the decree against the Manichees, 296 A. D.

7 The parallel of Alexander at Gordium and Jesus on the Mount of Temptation is too striking to be set aside as a coincidence. In each case, he who satisfied the oracle gained the lordship of the whole of Asia (in the case of Gordium), of the whole oikonmenē in the case of the Temptation.

8 On the Glory (or the Grace) of the Kaian (Achaemenid) House (hvareno kavaem), reference may be made to the admirable notes in A. G. and Warner, E. W.'s English translation of The Shāhnāma of Firdausi (9 vols.) (Trübner's Oriental Series), London, 1905–1925.Google Scholar This translation has two advantages (i) it is the most accessible and least expensive form in which the whole poem can be obtained and (ii) it is almost a literal translation of considerable literary charm. In their translation and notes they have collected the whole mass of literature dealing with the subject, and made full use of Nöldeke's researches. To this work should be added (Sir) Budge, E. Wallis, Alexander the Great, (Cambridge, 1889)Google Scholar, which is a translation of the Syriac version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes' Life of Alexander, with an invaluable introduction tracing the early history of this branch of heroic literature. The classic treatment of the Glory is to be found in the Zamyād Yast (S. B. E. XXIII, pp. 286–309.) which is in itself a miniature Shāhnāma, and if its claim to high antiquity is genuine it is one of our most primitive sources for the theory of oriental despotism. On the place of the Glory in Persian thought and its relation to Jewish thought v. von Gall, op. cit. pp. 107 ff., 128, 238 ff., 331–347, and for Christian doctrine, pp. 412–467. The reply of Afraat to the Jews is significant: “‘Jesus, our Lord, is truly the Son of God, the King, son of the King, Light of Light, creator, teacher, head, way, saviour, shepherd, etc.’ but he at once proceeds to show that the names of the Son of God, and even of God are applied in the Scriptures to Moses and other just men, the name of King of Kings to Nabuchadrezzar, and so, when these titles are applied to Christ, one should not attribute to them an unusual value.” Labourt, J., Le Christianisme dans L'Empire Perse, Paris, 1904, p. 33.Google Scholar In this paper, wherever the words Glory or Grace are used in the technical sense of the hvareno kavaem or farr, they are treated as proper names and capitalized.

9 cf. Gibbon's remarks, Bury-Gibbon, II, 65. 355 f., 375, and Burkitt, F. C., Early Eastern Christianity (London, 1904), pp. 52–69.Google Scholar

10 On the feud between Alexander and the Peripatetics, the reader will find full references in Berve, Helmut, Das Alexanderreich (München 1926), I, 66–7, 69Google Scholar; II, Nrs. 135, 408. On the point of view of Alexander, v. the introductions of Henri Berr to Huart, C., La Perse Antique, Paris 1925, pp. x – xiGoogle Scholar and Jouguet, P., L'Impérialisme Macédonien, Paris 1926. pp. viii–xv.Google Scholar The importance of Alexander is further enhanced by Tarn's, W. W. latest contribution “Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind.” (Proc. Brit. A. xix), Oxford 1933,Google Scholar in which he assigns to the King the credit of the doctrine of the brotherhood of man, previously assigned to Zeno and the Stoics.

11 I have given the reasons for this view in my article on The Oriental Despot, pp. 238–9.

12 M. P. G. LXXXIX, 109.

13 Tarn, v. W. W., Hellenistic Civilization, pp. 38 ff.Google Scholar; for the other side of the picture cf. Tertullian's description of Pontus, Adv. Marc. I, 1.

14 It is ixnpossible here to attempt even a summary of the literature which has grown up on the annexation of the lordship of Bel Marduk by the Roman Empire; particulars will be found in the bibliographies of the C. A. H. VII, 1–22, 869–70; Anderson, A. R., “Heraeles and his Successors” (Harv. Stud, in Class. Phil. XXXIX (1928), 7–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The latest work on the subject is Taylor, L. R., The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (Am. Phil. Assn. Middletown, Conn. 1931).Google Scholar In this work, the authoress has collected all the available material, but her attempt to identify the Persian King with the fravashi appears to me to be unfortunate and unnecessary.

15 I. Cor. i. 23.

16 Euripides, Iph. in Aulis, 1400, Aristotle Pol., I, 2. 5.

17 Hor. Od., I, 38.

18 Harnack, A., History of Dogma (E. T.), I, 41 f., 89, 99–107, 175–8Google Scholar, and Chap. VI. On Persian influence in Judaism, von Gall, op. cit., chapters V-IX. von Gall confines himself almost exclusively to the religious aspect of the Regnum Dei and takes no account of the religious value of the political institutions of the Medo-Persian Empire.

19 Harnack, op. cit., I, 243. The whole chapter is of the greatest value, but I would suggest that the perspective requires adjustment. The identification of Gnosticism with the acute hellenizing of Christianity obscures the fact that Gnosticism was simply the application of Persian dualism (Mithraism or Mazdaeism) to the evolution of a theological form for Christianity. The point of its hellenization was the point of its entry into Greek language and thought. The position of Marcion illustrates this point most clearly. He was a native of Pontus where Mithraism, as we know from the names of its kings, was the “established religion.” Mareion rejected the Law and yet remained ascetic to a degree far beyond the demands of Pharisaism. The same position is seen in Manichaeism. Burkitt, , in The Religion of the Manichees (Cambridge, 1924), p. 70Google Scholar, rejects this view erroneously, I think, in the following statement: “To come back to Ephraim, we shall see that Marcion and Bardaisan were both as dualistic as Mani, and neither of these, especially Marcion, can be accused of deriving his ideas from Persia.” (My italics). The answer to this contention is furnished by Tarn, , (Hellenistic Civilization, pp. 148ff.)Google Scholar, who shows the extent to which Persian ideas dominated both the religion and politics of Pontus and the neighbouring Kingdoms. After all, Gnosticism, and even Manichaeism, are but Christian Theology written in the ‘Mithraic mood,’ and in Marcion, the Persian foundation is clearly present in its elementary form, devoid of later elaboration and extravagance. See also the admirable chapter by Gwatkin, H. M., Early Church History (London, 1912), II, 19–72,Google Scholar where the oriental factor in Gnosticism receives much more attention. The idea of Gnosis is seen perhaps at its best, because free from misrepresentation, in Muslim mysticism. (Nicholson, v. R. A., Studies in Islamic Mysticism, Cambridge, pp. 50, 115 f., 215, 227, 249.)Google Scholar It is from the common basis which both Gnosticism and Hinduism find in Mithraic theology, that arises any similarity they possess rather than from any direct interdependence. On the whole question, Bousset, v. W., Kyrios Christos, Göttingen, 1913, pp. 222–263.Google Scholar

20 The chaos is reflected throughout The Syriac Chronicle known as that of Zachariah of Mitylene, translated by Hamilton and E. W. Brooks (London, 1899)Google Scholar and The Book of Governors: The Historia Monastica of Thomas, Bishop of Marga A. D. 840; Vol. I, Text; Vol. II, Translation, Introduction and Notes by (Sir) E. W. Budge, London 1893. Convenient surveys are found in Bell, R., The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment London, 1926,Google Scholar Lecture I, and O'Leary, Be Lacy, Arabia before Muhammad, London 1927,Google Scholar Chap. VII, and Pargoire, J., L'Eglise Byzantine, Paris, 1923, pp. 1–55, 74–82Google Scholar etc. as well as in the works of Bury, Vasiliev, and other Byzantine scholars.

21 Burkitt, F. C., The Church and Gnosis, Cambridge, 1932, p. 144.Google Scholar

22 It is impossible here to state the evidence for this conclusion as the question is far too intricate for condensation, but I have handled it fully in my work on the Regnum Dei, which is primarily concerned with the pre-Muslim developments of Firdausi's Shāhnāma. In any survey of that question, the Gospels must be considered as a possible offshoot of both the Cyrus and the Alexander “heroic” literature. The stress there on the Messiah points to Cyrus, the Messiah of Deutero-Isaiah, through Alexander, and the attempt of the Evangelists appears to be the portrayal of the real Cyrus and the true Regnum Dei against the heroic princeps huius mundi—Alexander the Great. The fact that the outstanding biographies in the years in which the Gospels were composed, were those of Alexander the Great is not without significance. The extreme limits are marked by Pompeius Trogus and Arrian's Anabasis.

23 Bevan, E. R., Jerusalem under the High Priests, London, 1920, pp. 143 ff., 155 –9.Google Scholar

24 Buckler, F. W., The Oriental Despot pp. 239–40, 246 –7.Google Scholar

25 The controversy on Proskynēsis and its implications is too voluminous to be quoted here. A convenient summary of the discussions to 1931 is contained in L. R. Taylor, op. cit., App. I-Il, where she states her defense against the attacks of Tarn and others. The conflict, however, lies really in the use of secondary sources—i. e. hellenistic rather than oriental—and undue reliance on the Greek point of view. The king, as the incarnation or bearer of the hvareno kavaem, receives worship on behalf of “the Glory” or “the Grace” which is in him. His delegates and vice gerents, who, insofar as they are extensions of his body, share the “Glory,” receive the same reverence (proskynēsis). This fact disposes of the difficulty of Herodotus I, 134 in the proskynēsis paid to grandees.

26 cf. Hort, F. J. A., The Christian Ecclesia, (London, 1914) p. 13.Google Scholar

27 See my paper, “The Human Khil',” The Near East and India, XXXIV (1928), pp. 269–270.Google Scholar

28 The reference is to the “royal incest” of Radbert, son of Hermegisklos King of the Varini (Procop. de Bell. Got. IV. 20) Aedbald of Kent (Baeda, H. E. II, 9), Aethelbald of Wessex (Prudentius Bert. Ann. Ed. G. Waitz p. 49), and the mother of Hamlet. It is called a Persian custom by Tatian (Orat. c. Graecos, c. 28), and banned by several councils. Nevertheless, the implication is clear from Solomon's reply to Bath Sheba “Ask for him my kingdom also.” (1. K. ii, 22). Frarer, in his Lectures on Kingship, wrongly assigns the custom to matriarchy, see my paper cit. supra, n. 27.

29 I am indebted to the admirable paper of DrGoodenough, B. R., “The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship,” Yale Classical Studies, I (1928), pp. 55–102Google Scholar for this suggestion. It is fortunately immaterial for the church historian whether Diotogenes or Pseudo-Ecphantus are second century B. C. or A. D. Their value is fixed by their inclusion in John Stobaeus' Anthology at the beginning of the fifth century. From his inclusion of the extracts translated by Goodenough, it is clear that the heresy of Apollinarius was not an isolated fact, but that he regarded the Son as a king, whose kingship he defined by means of the existing political philosophy of hellenistic kingship. It is surprising that Goodenough did not detect the fact that what he was describing was the secular counterpart of Apollinarianism, but it is evidence of the fact that the Bishop of Laodicea still regarded Jesus Christ as a king. Compare Raven, C. E., Apollinarianism, Cambridge, 1923Google Scholar, c. V. with Goodenough's essay. it is essential, moreover, to recognize the difference between the royal dikaiosunē, which produces law and justice, and the servile dikaiosunē, which merely accepts and observes the law, even though it be to the uttermost (cf. Mt. v. 20).

30 Webb, C. C. J., John of Salisbury, London, 1932, pp. 36–40, 48, 65.Google Scholar also Policrat. (ed. C. C. J. W.), Oxford, 1919, I, 280Google Scholar n.

31 Goodenough, op. cit., pp. 100–2 and footnotes. On the later development of justitia, Whitney, J. P., Hildebrandine Essays, Cambridge, 1931, pp. 71, 76, 77.Google ScholarEmerton, E., The Correspondence of Pope Gregory VII, Columbia U. P., 1931, pp.xxiv f.Google Scholar and index, 8. v.

An interesting parallel from India in the sixteenth century is seen in the claimmade for Akbar as the most just king (v. my paper “A new interpretation of Akbar's ‘Infallibility’ Decree of 1579,” J. R. A. S., 1924, pp. 591 ff.)

32 Tarn, , Hellenistic Civilization, pp. 38–43Google Scholar; Bevan, op. cit., pp. 135–149.

33 e. g. in the year 19 and 36 A. D.

34 See C. Huart, op. cit., pp. 137–8 and notes, 147–8.

35 v. p. 19, n. 6.

36 v. J. Labourt, op. cit. pp. 1–9, 39–50.

37 Duval, R., Anciennes Litteratures Chrétiennes, II, Paris, 1907, pp. 341 ff.Google Scholar, Labourt, op. cit., Cap. VI.

38 Labourt, op. cit., pp. 20ff. On the relation between the Christian Church in India and the see of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, v. Assemani B. O., III, pp. 92, 94ff., 435–437, and Renaudot, Hist. Patr. Alex., p. 184, where appears the Sasanian legacy to Islam in that a bishop in Muslim territory could not consecrate a bishop for the Indians without the permission of the king.

39 See below pp. 38ff.

40 Becker, C., “The Expansion of the Saracens—the East ” C. Med. H., II, 329–333, 349 –353.Google Scholar

41 Browne, E. G., A Literary History of Persia, (London, 1908), I, 236–244Google Scholar; Gaudefroy-Demombynes, et Platonov, , Le Monde Musulman et Byzantin, Paris 1931, pp. 260–268, 271 –4.Google Scholar This step is marked by the translation of Pseudo-Callisthenes' life of Alexander into Pahlavi and the adoption of Alexander by the fiction of the marriage of Olympias to Darab into the royal pantheon of Persia. v. Warner, op. cit. VI, 15–19; ef. below, p. 39, n. 81.

42 The Book of Daniel is also the first attempt to write history on the basis of the rise and fall of Empires. cf. Kampers, F., Alexander der Grosse und die Idee des Weltimperiums in Prophetie und Sage, Freiburg in B. 1901, pp. 13–15.Google Scholar It is interesting to notice that “at one time J. Weiss (like Völter) connected the expression basileía tou theou with the Khshathra—Vairya, one of the Amesha Spentas—a term which no doubt has the same meaning; but this explanation is no longer offered by him, and has probably been abandoned.” Clemen, C., Primitive Christianity, (E. T.), Edinburgh, 1912, p. 166.Google Scholar

43 Dan., iv, 30–34, v, 23–30; cf. Acts, xii, 21–23.

44 The full significance of deutero-Isaiah's references to Yahweh's appointment of Cyrus as the deliverer lies in the fact that Nabuchadrezzrar as the Nebo and Bel epihanes was the enslaver of the Jews, therefore it could not be their Glory which was revealed in Cyrus. The only alternative for the Hebrew prophet, then, was to conclude that the hvareno kavaem was from Yahweh.

45 Kennett, v. R. H., Old Testament Essays, Cambridge 1928, pp. 57, 87, 229–231.Google Scholar On his appointment as Governor of Jerusalem, Zerubbabel must have been invested with a robe of honour, indeed a malbūs khās, by which his portion of the hvareno kavaem would be transmitted.

46 v. P. Jouguet, op. cit., Berr's avant-propos pp. viii-x, and pp. 48–9, 129–133, 454–460.

47 Ibid. pp. 39, 49; for the references to Callisthenes v. Berve, op. cit. II, No. 408. The contrast with Xerxes is significant of the genius of Cyrus and Alexander's kingship and its relation to religion. The absorption of all the deities into Bel Marduk, and their individual “glories” into “the Glory” of the King of Kings automatically ensures religious toleration. The conduct of Alexander towards the High Priest in the story of Josephus, if not historical, is nevertheless characteristic and between his policy and that of Antiochus Epiphanes lies the gulf which separates his “medism” from Hellenism.

48 e. g. in the book of Daniel. See Jouguet's chapter on the dislocation of the Seleucid Empire and the attempts of Antiochus III to revive its prestige, pp. 232–269, together with the disastrous results pp. 435–442. Kennett (op. cit.) brings out the development of Jewish feeling through his commentary on the Psalms e. g. Ps. xxiv (pp. 150–153), Ps. lxviii (pp. 171–177).

49 Bigg, C., The Christian Patonists of Alexandria (Oxford, 1886), pp. 14–22.Google Scholar

50 Epicureanism appears to have been the one school of philosophy banned in the School of Alexandria. Bigg, op. cit., p. 42.

51 The most suggestive treatment I know of this topic is the late Canon Kennett's “The Origin and Development of the Messianic Hope,” op. cit., pp. 219–245. The whole point of the scheme of Daniel is the contrast between the beasts of the princedoms of this world and the son of man (p. 237). The appeal from Enoch to Daniel at the Trial before the High Priest thereby gains its significance (pp. 242–244). My own opinion is that “the son of man” in Mk. xiv, 62 should be interpreted in the light of Ps. viii. 4.

52 v.“The Meaning of the Cross,” esp. p. 417. The reason why Jesus could not make a direct attack on the prince of this world in order to seize the Glory from him is summed up in the Avestan phrase—He had to “seize the Glory that cannot forcibly be seized” and to avoid the errors of Yima and Azi Dahhāk. v. the Zamyād Yast, S. B. E., XXIII, pp. 294 ff.

53 To the reasons given in my paper “The Oriental Despot”, Harnack, add, History of Dogma, I, 184 ff.Google Scholar

54 v. supra p. 26. n. 29. Harnack pointed out long ago the outstanding position of Apollinarius in the Nicene Age (History of Dogma IV, 149–163.) and Raven has shown the extent to which his position has been absorbed by Cyril and his successors. Raven, op. cit., pp. 233 ff., 297 ff., cf. Sellers, op. cit., pp. 13–21, 117–120.

55 Eusebius, , H. E. II, 23.Google Scholar It should be remembered that dikaios is a royal title, implying possession of the dikaiosunē of the king, cf. Goodenough, op. cit.

56 I deal with this problem elsewhere, but it may be noticed here that in the passages in the Acts where James appears, the name of Jesus is not mentioned, and the Jewish Law is paramount. The “church” of Jerusalem is far more concerned with Saint Paul's teaching against the Law than with the gift he brought to the Church at Jerusalem, and his arrest in the Temple leaves a dark suspicion against those “pillars of the Church” who knew he was there.

57 Harnack, op. cit., I, 175–179.

58 C. Bigg, op. cit., pp. 53, 225 ff., Gwatkin, H. M., Early Church History, I, 97 f. 110, II,158 f., 177 ff.Google Scholar

59 E. Bevan, op. cit., pp. 8, 117 f., 156 f.; v. supra, p. 30, n. 45.

60 Appian, , Mithr., 117.Google Scholar

61 The reference is to Julius Caesar'sliaison with Cleopatra and Mark Antony's marriage with her, by which they were incorporated into the body politic of the Pharaohs.

62 Schur, W., “Die Orientpolitik des Kaisers Nero,” Klio, (Beih. XV, N. F. Heft II) Leipzig, 1923, pp. 4 ff., 112 ff.Google Scholar

63 Figgis, J. N., Churches in the Modern State, London, 1913, pp. 200–212.Google Scholar

64 On the relation of the Logos to the development of the doctrine of the Person of Christ, v. Harnack, op. cit., I, 327–331, III, 51–80, 86–94; Bigg, op. cit., 15–26, 67–69, 167 ff., Raven, op. cit., 9, 11, 185, 195–200.

65 Tertullian, , Apologia, cxxiGoogle Scholar, cf. Bethune-Baker, J. F., An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine, London, 1929, pp. 138 ff.Google Scholar

66 For a survey of the use of the word prosōpon, Nestorius, v., The Bazaar of Heracleides, tr. Driver, G. B. and Hodgson, L., Oxford, 1925, pp. 402–410Google Scholar; cf. Loofs, F., Nestorius, Cambridge, 1914, pp. 74–94Google Scholar; See below, pp. 36–7, nn. 71–73.

67 Gwatkin, H. M., Studies in Arianism, Cambridge, 1900, pp. 56 ff.Google Scholar, Sellers, R. V., Eustathius of Antioch, Cambridge, 1928, pp. 31 ff.Google Scholar This work is an attempt to evaluate the Syrian tradition and its place in the Nicene controversy on the basis of Loofs, F., Paulus von Samosata, (T. und U. XLIV, 5) Leipzig, 1924.Google Scholar

68 Starting from the conception of the normal unity of will which exists between a king and a loyal vassal, Monothelitism reveals more clearly than any other heresy the hopelessness of the hellenistic attempt to interpret oriental kingship. The heresy, though formally condemned, was the last phase of the Monophysite heresy, but it should be remembered that of the Alexandrian theologians of this period, those who were not secret Apollinarians were unconscious Monophysites. The chaos at Alexandria is admirably portrayed in the work of Maspero, Jean, Histoire des Patriarches d'Alexandrie, ed. Fortescue, A. and Wiet, G., Paris, 1923, pp. 1–22Google Scholar, and the effect on the population of Egypt of the controversies, pp. 23–64. But ultimately, both heresies, together with the type of orthodoxy they represented, were alike philosophical parodies of the Regnum Dei and the final stages of the reductio ad absurdum of Alexandrian theology.

69 cf. C. Bigg, op. cit. pp. 85–87, and my paper “The Re-emergence of the Arian Controversy,” pp. 12–15.

70 Harnack, A., History of Dogma, IV, 146–163. V.Google Scholar supra p. 32, n. 54.

71 Nan, F., Nestorius, Le Livre d'Héraclide de Damas, Paris, 1910, p. vGoogle Scholar, together with the references there; Loofs, F., Nestorius, Cambridge, 1914, pp. 113–116Google Scholar; R. V. Sellers, op. cit., Cap. I. We have, at last, in von Wesendonck, O. G., Das Weltbild der Iranier, München, 1933Google Scholar, a really clear and satisfactory account of the religious movements in the Sasanian Empire in the years of the great Christian controversies, v. esp. pp. 242–284 and notes. Nestorius' parents and grandparents must have been in Persia during the critical period for the Christians, 340–370, and their departure may have been determined by them; indeed much of Nestorius' behaviour, as well as his teaching can best be explained on basis of “foreign extraction.”

72 It is neither my desire nor my intention to detract from the work of Professor Bethune-Baker's, Nestorius and his Teaching, (Cambridge, 1908)Google Scholar, or the late Professor Loofs' work (cit. sup.) as I, in common with other Church historians, owe to them an immense debt, not merely for procuring for Nestorius a hearing and his consequent vindication, but also for the enormous advance marked by their work in suggesting the lines on which non Graeco-Roman Christian thought can be assessed. Whatever may be said in criticism of their views, it must be remembered that they opened the gates to a region practically ignored by Christian theologians. The later developments are seen in F. Loofs Paulus von Samosata and R. V. Sellers, Eustathius of Antioch. Nevertheless, I am firmly convinced of the necessity of an approach from behind the Greek sources and free from their metaphysical bias, such as the approach from MedoPersian thought supplies. To carry the suggestion further, the origin of Nestorius' technical use of the word prosōpon should be sought, not in the current theological and philosophical terminology of Alexandria or Antioch, but rather in the usage of the Sasanian court, reflected in the inscriptions of Artaxerxes I and Sapor I, who are described as follows: “touto to prosōpon Masdasnou theou Artaarou basileōs basileōn …” (Rawlinson, G., The Seventh Monarchy, N. Y. edn. 1884, pp. 278, 289 f.).Google Scholar

73 Loofs, , Nestorus, pp. 70–94.Google Scholar The learned author's final disposal of Cyril's personal reputation in the second lecture of this work is perhaps one of the most satisfying passages in the whole range of ecclesiastical historiography.

74 Ibid. p. 82. Nowhere is the implication of delegated function or the corporate nature of Oriental Despotism more succinetly summed up than in the sentence of Nestorius “The manhood is the prosōpon of the Godhead and the Godhead is the prosōpon of the manhood.” See Nestorius' arguments in which he compares and contrasts the Incarnation with the function and status of an ambassador, Bazaar (Tr.) D. and H., pp. 57 f.; Nan, p. 54; cf. too, the converse, D. and H., pp. 20–1, 55; Nan, pp. 17–19, 50–1.

75 Labourt, op. cit. pp. 122–5, 157; Pargoire, op. cit., pp. 1–42.

76 The Nestorians reached all parts of Central Asia, China, and India. I have also seen it claimed that by way of Chinese merchants, Nestorianism reached the west coast of Central America at an early date.

77 Qu'rān, iii, 73, ii, 110, vi, 100–1, etc. On the influence of the Nestorian Church on the Prophet, Andrae, Tor, Mohammed, Göttingen, 1932, pp. 72–75.Google Scholar

78 SirArnold, T. W., The Caliphate, London 1924Google Scholar, Cap. III, particularly pp. 43–45. I have used Arnold's translatíon substituting deputies for successors, an obvious correction. Arnold wrote during the Caliphate agitation following the conclusion of the war and the controversy colours his work in a few places, as here. The passage quoted is xxxviii, 25.

79 Qur. vi. 165. The verse is almost Pauline in tone.

80 e. g. the Eucharist.

81 v. supra. p. 28, n. 38. For further information on the Caliphs and Christianity Buckler, v. F. W., Hārūnu'l-Rashīd and Charles the Great, Cambridge, Mass., 1931, pp. 8Google Scholar n. 3, 28 n. 3, 48–50; (Sir) Arnold, T. W., The Preaching of Islam, ²London, 1913, pp. 63–91.Google Scholar It may be not inappropriate here to quote the exegesis of ‘Ali Tabari, a convert from Christianity to Islam, of Jeremiah xlix, 35–38: “There is another wonderful mystery in this prophecy; it is that the Most High God has represented by it this ‘Abbassid Empire, and the dwelling in the land of 'lrāk of the Caliphs from the family of 'Abbās, by His saying ‘I will set my throne in Elam.’ It is their appanage, which only the feeble-minded ignore.” The whole chapter (xxv) is well worthy of attention. (The Book of Religion and Empire by 'Ali Tabari, tr. A. Mingana, Manchester, 1922, p. 126).Google Scholar

82 R. Frick, op. cit. pp. 153–5.

83 Pauck, W., Das Reich Gottes auf Erden, (Arb. z. Kgesch). Berlin, 1928, 68–94.Google Scholar An exception, however, must be made in favour of Hobbes, who made the proper identification of ‘kingdome’ with ‘Soveraign Power’. (Leviathan, III, c. 35).