gave, presumably, the only official statement of faith the Church knew other than the Nicene creed, viz., the Confession that the council of 486 had endorsed; and declared that the "Easterns" knew nothing of Nestorius and his heresy, and had simply kept the faith as they always had received it. This was probably perfectly true, as far as Christology was concerned; for up to that time the Assyrian Church had only retained the loose phraseology of an earlier age, either not knowing that the terms they used were changing their meaning in the "West," or thinking that the fact did not concern them. There is much strength in the position "they may change their terms if they like, but why should they think we ought to?" and had the Assyrian Church always acted thus, their position would be much less equivocal. Acacius was admitted to communion, and this may be taken as in some sort a healing of the separation that Bar-soma had brought about; but the memory of the rift remained, and was of evil omen for the future. As a matter of fact, the Church of the capital was herself too torn by dissensions to act very decisively, and the point is important. When we speak of the Assyrian Church "separating herself from the union of Christendom" we ought not to forget that the phrase presupposes the existence of an united body to separate from; and that such a body did not exist after the council of Chalcedon. What really happened was this. When all was in confusion and schism rife everywhere, one portion of the Church, isolated and independent before, took an independent line which led her into further isolation. Whether her teaching was really different from that portion of the Church which we now call "orthodox," and whether, granting that, it is now so different from that of another and younger portion of the Church that these two cannot enter
