We have now to refer to an important incident in the history of the Jacobite Syrians. Through the influence of the British Resident, and in the hope of effecting the union proposed by Dr. Buchanan, the Church Mission Society commenced their labours in 1816. The English Missionaries began their work under favourable circumstances, and the most cordial relations existed between the Syrians and the missionaries for some years, so much so that the latter frequently visited the Syrian churches, and even preached sermons. On the death of Dionysius III in 1825, or as some say 1827, Cheppat Dionysius consecrated by Mar Philixenos again, succeeded as Metropolitan under the title of Dionysius IV. During his régime, there grew up among the Syrians a party, who suspected that the missionaries were using their influence with the Metropolitan, and secretly endeavouring to bring the Syrians under the Protestant Church. The conservative party of Syrians stoutly opposed the movement. They petitioned the Patriarch of Antioch, who at once sent out a Bishop named Athanasius. On arrival in 1825, a large number of Syrians flocked to him. He even went to the length of threatening Mar Dionysius with excommunication. But the Protestant missionaries and the British Resident came to the rescue of the Metropolitan, and exercised their influence with the ruler of Travancore, who forthwith deported Athanasius. The deportation of Athanasius strengthened the position of the missionaries. The British Resident, and through his influence the native ruler, often rendered them the most unqualified support. The missionaries who superintended the education of the Syrian students in the seminary, having begun to teach them doctrines contrary to those of the Jacobite Church, the cordiality and friendship that had existed between the missionaries and the Metropolitan gradually gave place to distrust and suspicion. The party that clung to the time-honoured traditions and practices of their church soon fanned the flame of discord, and snapped asunder the ties of friendship that had bound the Metropolitan to the missionaries. Bishop Wilson of Calcutta proceeded to Travancore to see if a reconciliation could be effected. But his attempts in this direction proved fruitless, because the Syrians could not accept his proposal to adopt important changes affecting their spiritual and temporal concerns, such as doing away with prayers for the dead, the revision of their liturgy, the management of church funds, etc., and the Syrians finally parted company with the missionaries in 1838. Soon after this, disputes arose in regard to the funds and endowments of the seminary, but they were soon settled by arbitration in 1840, and the properties were divided between the Metropolitan and the missionaries. The missionaries had friends among the Jacobites, some of whom became members of the Church of England.
Mar Dionysius.
The Syrians were rather distressed, because they thought that the consecration of their Metropolitan by Mar Philixenos was insufficient. They therefore memorialised the Patriarch of Antioch. There grew up also a party hostile to the Metropolitan, and they sent to Antioch a Syrian Christian named Mathew. His arrival at Antioch was most opportune. The Patriarch was looking out for a proper man. Mathew was therefore welcomed, and treated very kindly. He was consecrated as Metropolitan by the Patriarch himself in 1842, and sent out with the necessary credentials. He arrived in 1843 as Metropolitan of Malankara under the title of Mathew Anastatius, and advanced his claims to the headship of the Church, but Mar Dionysius resisted him, and sent an appeal to the Patriarch of Antioch, in which he denounced Mathew as one who had enlisted his sympathies with the Protestant missionaries. Upon this, the Patriarch sent out one Cyril with power to expel Mathew, and, with the connivance of Mar Dionysius, Cyril cut the gordian knot by appointing himself as Metropolitan of Malabar. Disputes arising, a committee was appointed to examine the claims of Athanasius and Cyril. The credentials of Cyril were proved to be forged, whereupon Athanasius was duly installed in his office in 1862, and Cyril fled the country. Cyril having failed, the Patriarch sent another Bishop named Stephanos, who contributed his mite towards widening the breach, and, on the British Resident having ordered the Bishop to quit the country, an appeal was preferred to the Court of Directors, who insisted on a policy of non-interference. This bestirred Mar Cyril, who reappeared on the scene, and fanned the flame of discord. Being ordered to leave Mar Athanasius unmolested, he and his friends sent one Joseph to Antioch, who returned with fresh credentials in 1866, assumed the title of Dionysius V, claimed the office of Metropolitan, and applied to the Travancore Government for assistance. Adopting a policy of non-interference, the darbar referred him to the Law Courts, in case he could not come to terms with Mar Athanasius. The Patriarch of Antioch himself visited Cochin and Travancore in 1874, and presided over a Synod which met at Mulanthurutha in the Cochin State. Resolutions affirming the supremacy of Antioch, recognising Mar Dionysius as the accredited Metropolitan of Malabar, and condemning Mathew Athanasius as a schismatic, were passed by the members of the assembly, and the Patriarch returned to Mardin in 1876. This, however, did not mend matters, and the two parties launched themselves into a protracted law suit in 1879, which ended in favour of Mar Dionysius in 1889. Mar Athanasius, who had taken up an independent position, died in 1875, and his cousin, whom he had consecrated, succeeded as Metropolitan under the title of Mar Thomas Anastatius. He died in 1893, and Titus Mar Thoma, consecrated likewise by his predecessor, presides over the Reformed Party of Jacobite Syrians, who prefer to be called St. Thomas’ Syrians. We have thus traced the history of the Jacobite Syrians from 1653, and shown how they separated themselves into two parties, now represented by the Jacobite Syrians under Mar Dionysius, owing allegiance to the Patriarch of Antioch, and the Reformed Syrians or St. Thomas’ Syrians owning Titus Mar Thoma as their supreme spiritual head. Thus, while the Jacobite Syrians have accepted and acknowledged the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch, the St. Thomas’ Syrians, maintaining that the Jacobite creed was introduced into Malabar only in the seventeenth century after a section of the church had shaken off the Roman supremacy, uphold the ecclesiastical autonomy of the church, whereby the supreme control of the spiritual and temporal affairs of the church is declared to be in the hands of the Metropolitan of Malabar. The St. Thomas’ Syrians hold that the consecration of a Bishop by, or with the sanction of the Patriarch of Babylon, Alexandria or Antioch, gives no more validity or sanctity to that office than consecration by the Metropolitan of Malabar, the supreme head of the church in Malabar, inasmuch as this church is as ancient and apostolic as any other, being founded by the apostle St. Thomas; while the Jacobites hold that the consecration of a Bishop is not valid, unless it be done with the sanction of their Patriarch. The St. Thomas’ Syrians have, however, no objection to receiving consecration from the head of any other episcopal apostolic church, but they consider that such consecrations do not in any way subject their church to the supremacy of that prelate or church.
Both the Latins and the Romo-Syrians use the liturgy of the Church of Rome, the former using the Latin, and the latter the Syriac language. It is believed by some that the Christians of St. Thomas formerly used the liturgy of St. Adæus, East Syrian, Edessa, but that it was almost completely assimilated to the Roman liturgy by Portuguese Jesuits at the Synod of Diamper in 1599. The Chaldæan Syrians also use the Roman liturgy, with the following points of difference in practice, communicated to me by their present ecclesiastical head:—(1) They perform marriage ceremonies on Sundays, instead of week days as the Romo-Syrians do. (2) While reading the Gospel, their priests turn to the congregation, whereas the Romo-Syrian priests turn to the altar. (3) Their priests bless the congregation in the middle of the mass, a practice not in vogue among the Romo-Syrians. (4) They use two kinds of consecrated oil in baptism, which does away with the necessity of confirmation. The Romo-Syrians, on the other hand, use only one kind of oil, and hence they have to be subsequently confirmed by one of their Bishops.
The liturgy used by the Jacobite Syrians and the St. Thomas’ Syrians is the same, viz., that of St. James. The St. Thomas’ Syrians have, however, made some changes by deleting certain passages from it. [A recent writer observes that “a service which I attended at the quaint old Syrian church at Kōttayam, which glories in the possession of one of the three ancient stone crosses in India, closely resembled, as far as my memory serves me, one which I attended many years ago at Antioch, except that the non-sacramental portions of the mass were read in Malayālam instead of in Arabic, the sacramental words alone being in both cases spoken in the ancient Syriac tongue.] In regard to doctrine and practice, the following points may be noted:—(1) While the Jacobite Syrians look upon the Holy Bible as the main authority in matters of doctrine, practice, and ritual, they do not allow the Bible to be interpreted except with the help of the traditions of the church, the writings of the early Fathers, and the decrees of the Holy Synods of the undivided Christian period; but the St. Thomas’ Syrians believe that the Holy Bible is unique and supreme in such matters. (2) While the Jacobites have faith in the efficacy and necessity of prayers, charities, etc., for the benefit of departed souls, of the invocation of the Virgin Mary and the Saints in divine worship, of pilgrimages, and of confessing sins to, and obtaining absolution from priests, the St. Thomas’ Syrians regard these and similar practices as unscriptural, tending not to the edification of believers, but to the drawing away of the minds of believers from the vital and real spiritual truths of the Christian Revelation. (3) While the Jacobites administer the Lord’s Supper to the laity and the non-celebrating clergy in the form of consecrated bread dipped in consecrated wine, and regard it a sin to administer the elements separately after having united them in token of Christ’s resurrection, the St. Thomas’ Syrians admit the laity to both the elements after the act of uniting them. (4) While the Jacobite Syrians allow marriage ceremonies on Sundays, on the plea that, being of the nature of a sacrament, they ought to be celebrated on Sundays, and that Christ himself had taken part in a marriage festival on the Sabbath day, the St. Thomas’ Syrians prohibit such celebrations on Sundays as unscriptural, the Sabbath being set apart for rest and religious exercises. (5) While the Jacobites believe that the mass is as much a memorial of Christ’s oblation on the cross as it is an unbloody sacrifice offered for the remission of the sins of the living and of the faithful dead, the St. Thomas’ Syrians observe it as a commemoration of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. (6) The Jacobites venerate the cross and the relics of Saints, while the St. Thomas’ Syrians regard the practice as idolatry. (7) The Jacobites perform mass for the dead, while the St. Thomas’ Syrians regard it as unscriptural. (8) With the Jacobites, remarriage, marriage of widows, and marriage after admission to full priesthood, reduce a priest to the status of a layman, and one united in any such marriage is not permitted to perform priestly functions, whereas priests of the St. Thomas’ Syrian party are allowed to contract such marriages without forfeiture of their priestly rights. (9) The Jacobite Syrians believe in the efficacy of infant baptism, and acknowledge baptismal regeneration, while the St. Thomas’ Syrians, who also baptise infants, deny the doctrine of regeneration in baptism, and regard the ceremony as a mere external sign of admission to church communion. (10) The Jacobites observe special fasts, and abstain from certain articles of food during such fasts, while the St. Thomas’ Syrians regard the practice as superstitious.
The Jacobite Syrian priests are not paid any fixed salary, but are supported by voluntary contributions in the shape of fees for baptism, marriages, funerals, etc. The Romo-Syrian and Latin priests are paid fixed salaries, besides the above perquisites. The Syrian priests are called Kathanars, while the Latin priests go by the name of Pādres. For the Jacobite Syrians, the morone or holy oil required for baptism, consecration of churches, ordination of priests, etc., has to be obtained from Antioch. The churches under Rome get it from Rome. Unlike the Catholic clergy, the Jacobite clergy, except their Metropolitan and the Rambans, are allowed to marry.
The generality of Syrians of the present day trace their descent from the higher orders of the Hindu society, and the observance by many of them of certain customs prevalent more or less among high-caste Hindus bears out this fact. It is no doubt very curious that, in spite of their having been Christians for centuries together, they still retain the traditions of their Hindu forefathers. It may sound very strange, but it is none the less true, that caste prejudices which influence their Hindu brethren in all social and domestic relations obtain to some extent among some sections of the Syrian Christians, but, with the spread of a better knowledge of the teachings of Christ, the progress of English education, and contact with European Christians, caste observances are gradually dying out. The following relics of old customs may, however, be noted:—
(1) Some Christians make offerings to Hindu temples with as much reverence as they do in their own churches.
Some non-Brāhman Hindus likewise make offerings to Christian churches.