Three Degrees of Holy Orders and Nine Subdivisions. – Comparison With the Ranks of Angels. The Present Head of the Syro-Chaldean Church. – His Full Title. – Privileges in the Patriarchate and at the Sees. The Power of Mar-Shimun. – Metropolitan. – Former Provinces and Missions of the Syro-Chaldeans. – Bishops. – Former Methods of Election. – Duties of the Episcopal Ministry. – The Parish Priest, His Duties and Position. – Clerical Vestments. – Election of Parish Priests. – Begging in Europe. – Deacons and Their Duties. – Minor Orders. – Monasteries

The Syro-Chaldeans divide their hierarchical system in accordance with the ranks of the angels: they count properly three orders—the episcopate, the presbyterate, and the diaconate—but subdivide each order into three ranks. Thus the diaconate consists of readers, whose duty it is to perform the reading from the Old Testament and the Acts of the Apostles; subdeacons, who manage the church, guard the doors, and light the lamps; and deacons (shamashi), who pronounce the litanies at the liturgy and other services. But the first two of these subdivisions no longer exist. Likewise, the priesthood consists simply of priests, whose duty it is—according to the Syro-Chaldean book of canon law, the so-called Sunhados (book 6, paragraph 1)—to offer the sacrifice (the Eucharist); of chorepiscopi, who in former times visited villages and monasteries as representatives of the diocesan bishop; and of archdeacons, whose very title, as the Syro-Chaldeans understand it, means “head of the ministry” and who therefore serve as superintendents in the bishop’s church. The office of chorepiscopus no longer exists, and even when the book of Sunhados assumed its present form (probably in the thirteenth century) the office had already ceased to exist, although its duties were performed by the so-called “periodeutai” (“visitors”), who were formerly the deputies of the chorepiscopi. The episcopate is likewise divided (in this case both in the books and in practice) into three ranks; it consists of simple or diocesan bishops, who “ordain all readers, subdeacons, deacons, and priests, give the blessing to the periodeutai, and pronounce the prayer over the archdeacons”; of metropolitans, who “ordain their vicars”—though in practice all bishops are ordained by the patriarch; and of patriarchs, who ordain metropolitans and confirm bishops. These distinctions are significant in that they show to which of these orders ordination was administered and to which it was not. There was no special ordination for the archidiaconate, which was no more than a simple title of honor conferred upon an influential parish priest, nor for the office of chorepiscopus. These offices were always held by priests upon whom certain special duties were merely imposed. But all three ranks of the episcopate are received through ordination or consecration (in the Syro-Chaldean language there is only one word for both expressions), and in the canon there is a separate form of ordination for each of them. Since translation from one see to another is forbidden in all ordinary cases, anyone appointed to the rank of patriarch, metropolitan, or simple bishop holds no rank higher than a simple priest and requires consecration. The canons cite the refusal of St. Gregory of Nazianzus to become Bishop of Constantinople on the ground that he had already been raised to the episcopate, as well as certain other cases, on the basis of which transfers from one diocese to another are not permitted; but they add that if a bishop has been forcibly expelled against his will from his see, he may be transferred to another, even to a metropolitan see. It is doubtful what kind of consecration would be performed in such a case. Probably only the prayers appointed for a metropolitan would be said. The canons give no clarification on this point.

A somewhat different ordering of the hierarchy is given by the “Book of Heavenly Intelligences and of the Church in Heaven and on Earth,” erroneously attributed to Mar-Shimun Barsebae and included in the Asheet Sunhados. In this book the chorepiscopi are placed above the archdeacons, and the latter are included among the visitors—saure. At the elevation to the rank of chorepiscopus a blessing is performed that is “not like ordination,” but the archdeacon and the visitor were in earlier times ordained, although this was no longer the case at the time when the book was written. The order of the hierarchy in this book is given as follows:

I. a) Catholicoi or patriarchs = Cherubim.

b) Metropolitans = Seraphim.

c) Bishops = Thrones.

II. a) Chorepiscopi = Dominions.

b) Visitors = Powers.

c) Priests = Authorities.

III. a) Deacons = Principalities.

b) Subdeacons = Archangels.

c) Readers = Angels.

It is interesting to note that, according to the Syro-Chaldeans’ assertion, the Lord Himself passed through all nine subdivisions of the three orders: He was a reader when He read in the synagogue at Nazareth (Lk. 4:17); a subdeacon when He “drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple” (Mt. 21:12); a deacon when He preached “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt. 4:17) and washed the disciples’ feet (Jn. 13:5); a priest when He baptized at Aenon near Salim (Jn. 3:23) and when He celebrated the Eucharist; a visitor when He visited villages and towns, healing the sick and casting out demons, and when He sent out the twelve and seventy disciples to preach; an archdeacon when He established the order of their ministry (Lk. 9:2; 10:1); a bishop when He ordained the apostles (Jn. 20:22); a metropolitan at the same time and when He commissioned them to baptize (Mt. 28:19), and also when He told the Apostle Peter to strengthen his brothers (Lk. 22:32); and a patriarch when He gave His promise to the Apostle Peter (Mt. 16:18–19) and when He commanded him to “feed His sheep” (Jn. 21:15–18). The book of Sunhados adds that no bishop may perform worship, even if he has been ordained, until he has been confirmed by the patriarch, because the apostles did not go forth to preach until they had been confirmed by the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

All these subdivisions of the three orders are comprehended under the single term for priesthood—kanuta; and thus a deacon, although he is not a kana—a priest—in the strict sense, is a member of the kanuta. St. Ephrem the Syrian was only a deacon, yet he spoke of himself as belonging to the “priesthood.” This has sometimes misled translators of the works of St. Ephrem.

At the present time the head of the Syro-Chaldean Church bears the dynastic name of Mar-Shimun, which literally means “my lord Simon.” The name given him at baptism is Ruil (Reuben), and he signs his letters with the words: “Ruil-Shimun.” His successor, when he ascends the patriarchal throne, will also be called Mar-Shimun, whose full title is: “the venerable and highly esteemed father of fathers and great shepherd, Mar-Shimun, patriarch, catholicos of the East.” But the prescribed form in the Asheet Sunhados gives him a still longer title, which must be written out when addressing the patriarch in writing. This title reads as follows: “Father of fathers, supreme shepherd, head of overseers, absolved and absolver of the absolved, the holy one who anoints high priests and priests at consecration, earthly angel and bodily seraph, Peter of our time, Paul of our age, Timothy of our days, chosen among the apostles and beloved among the fathers, dispenser of grace, abounding in absolutions, our lord and father, Mar-Shimun, catholicos, patriarch of the East,” and so forth. This entire title is reverently written out in full by those who address letters to the patriarch, while the substance of what they wish to convey is set forth only at the very end of the letter.

The succession to the patriarchal throne ordinarily takes place as follows. Among the patriarch’s kinsmen there are always several young men who never eat meat and do not marry, and whose mothers ate no meat during their pregnancy. One of these nziri—as they are called (that is, Nazirites)—is chosen, either during the patriarch’s lifetime or at his death, as his successor. The other candidates who are passed over sometimes begin afterward to eat meat and to marry, and thereby forfeit their right to occupy an episcopal office. A similar order obtains in the appointment of successors to bishops. A bishop, like his designated successor, may not eat meat or enter into marriage, since they are regarded as monks—though this was not always so. In the thirteenth century bishops “were generally chosen from among the monks,” but the canons state that the people “should not seek a bishop among the wealthy, but should choose any worthy individual, whether a stranger or not. If a monk is chosen, greater attention should be paid to whether he is orthodox.”

This kind of hereditary episcopate apparently came into being during the last three or four centuries and represents a kind of abuse. The practice is undoubtedly in contradiction with the canons, which stipulate that “a bishop cannot appoint his own successor.” But one can hardly doubt that under the present condition of the people, no more suitable arrangement for them could be found. Any popular election among an oppressed people that has never had the opportunity to learn how to exercise the franchise properly would lead to many disturbances. The present system has the further advantage of creating among the people an aristocracy in the best sense of the word, which they would otherwise entirely lack. In any case, such is the existing practice, and the people are strongly attached to it and would reluctantly agree to any change. It is the long-established custom for each bishop to have one or more nephews or cousins who live with him as Nazirites and whom he rears as his successors—and this custom proves to be very sound given the present state of things.

When in former times it was necessary to fill the patriarchal office, requiring the election of a successor, the two large independent tribes of Tiari and Thuma would assemble, choose one of the Nazirites from the patriarchal family, and this invariably led to various disputes and contentions. The far East has not been exempt from the rule that popular election to an episcopal office is always a cause of popular unrest and strife.

When a successor has been chosen, he is consecrated by the metropolitan. This is a remnant of the old order that is known only from the canons. When the patriarchs resided at Seleucia-Ctesiphon on the southern Tigris, it was the custom for the bishop of Kashkar—one of the bishops of the patriarchal province—or, if he was no longer living, the bishop of Zab, to summon in writing four metropolitans who were considered the most senior, although according to some accounts two additional ones joined them as well. Accompanied by three bishops, they would assemble together and, with the consent of the populations of the patriarchal cities of Seleucia and Ctesiphon, would elect, ordain, and enthrone the chosen individual in the great church of Kuhi. At least three metropolitans were required to be present on such an occasion, but in time of persecution two were considered sufficient, in concelebration with the bishops of the patriarchal province, with the metropolitan of Elam or Elimais from south-western Persia presiding.

All these rules and titles now exist only in memory. In the Syro-Chaldean Church there is but one metropolitan, and alas! the “time of persecution” almost never ceases.

Mar-Shimun exercises both spiritual and civil authority, especially over the tribal or independent Syro-Chaldeans in the valleys of central Kurdistan. His civil authority is to a considerable degree recognized by the Turkish government, which for political reasons grants him an annual subsidy. The Turkish government can often exercise its power over his people only through his intermediary and at his pleasure.

The patriarch is regarded as the source of all gifts of the Church, holds all orders and offices in his hands, and dispenses them at his own discretion. His title “catholicos” is ordinarily interpreted in the sense of “holder of all,” because he possesses all orders of the priesthood and holds all authority in his hands. Metropolitans and bishops cannot overturn what he has decreed: “he has authority over all, as the brain and skull over the members, to bind and loose in heaven and on earth, and he holds the keys of the height and the depth.”

The same book says that no one can judge him, since his judge is Christ. In the same section, however, it is decreed that “his brother-patriarchs are to judge him.” But here evidently the whole Christian world is meant; and in yet another place deposition is appointed as a punishment for the patriarch.

The Syro-Chaldeans reckon five patriarchates: Rome (the first), Alexandria, Ephesus—subsequently transferred to Constantinople—Antioch, and Seleucia (their own). They do not include Jerusalem in this number, but say that a special honor belongs to Jerusalem and that it is not subordinate to Caesarea. This may be a reference to the seventh Nicene canon. The Syro-Chaldeans acknowledge that Seleucia was once dependent upon Antioch and that its metropolitans went thither for consecration, but that this arrangement was altered on grounds set forth in a letter purportedly sent by the four Western patriarchs to the Church of the East: “At first Seleucia was the first metropolitan see, and its metropolitan ordained bishops throughout all the East—in Assyria, Media, and Persia—and was their ruler. But now, on account of recent upheavals, when two patriarchs (sic) from the East were crucified at the doors of the Antiochene church by Jews and Manichaeans, we grant it independence; let him who occupies it be a patriarch and may by his own authority consecrate metropolitans, with the consent of two bishops present with him, and the number three is not to be reduced… Upon the death of a patriarch, let metropolitans and bishops assemble in as great a number as possible and ordain the patriarch, and he will be our ministers, since we act through them. Full ecclesiastical authority is granted to him, and all bishops ordained by metropolitans must be confirmed by him and must receive from him a letter before ordaining or performing any episcopal act. If there be any accusation against him, the matter must be investigated by other patriarchs, not by his disciples, and if the time be peaceable, Persia will carry out our determinations.” This letter was purportedly brought by Agbata, bishop of Elam (from south-western Persia), and he was therefore made the first metropolitan, presided at the election of the patriarch, and consecrated him.

The patriarch is the judge of both metropolitans and bishops. The metropolitans appear never to have had any coercive authority over their suffragans. “If a metropolitan can settle a dispute or accusation against a bishop amicably—well and good; if not, it is the catholicos’s duty to resolve it. A metropolitan cannot govern his brother-bishops by force, but only by persuasion.” But it appears that even the catholicos can act only through the intermediary of a synod. “The patriarch cannot remove any bishop or metropolitan without the consent of three metropolitans: the Elamite, the Nisibene, and the Busran, or, if any of these is no longer living, the Assyrian metropolitan.” For this purpose the metropolitans assembled in the patriarchal city, at first annually and later once every four years, to examine all complaints; but the most distant metropolitans simply sent letters expressing their agreement once every six years. Anathemas likewise could only be pronounced by synods. A provincial synod could depose only with the patriarch’s sanction. These synods assembled in the metropolitan city twice a year and dealt only with secondary matters. A metropolitan could not ordain in the diocese of any of his suffragan bishops. The patriarch alone is the judge of all and may ordain wherever he pleases, because he is the “common father.”

Excommunication pronounced by the patriarch is still regarded as a very serious punishment, especially in the mountains, where no one will speak to a person who has been excommunicated by Mar-Shimun. Excommunication can, however, always be lifted, “since the sinner is given the opportunity to repent.” Deposition, on the other hand, “makes a person dead, and it is applied only to the clergy. If a deposed cleric repents, he does not recover his order.”

Among the bishops who acknowledge the authority of Mar-Shimun, there is only one metropolitan, ordinarily called for brevity the maran, whose dynastic name is Mar-Khanisho—that is, “my lord, the grace of Jesus.” His personal baptismal name is Isaac. He signs himself: Isaac Khanisho. By his rank he is considered the second person in the Church. There are no longer provinces as there were in antiquity, and Mar-Khanisho does not exercise even the limited metropolitan authority as recognized by the canons. He has two neighboring bishops who are more or less dependent upon him and who might perhaps be called his suffragans; but his well-known integrity gives him a respect and influence that extend far beyond his immediate neighborhood. It is he who holds the right to consecrate the patriarch, and he may also ordain bishops; but in practice this is generally done by the patriarch himself.

The metropolitans, in the Syro-Chaldean interpretation, were appointed by the Apostle Paul in the principal cities, and the bishops in the smaller ones. At first Seleucia was the metropolitan city; but when it became a patriarchate, the following provinces were established, ranked according to the order of their appearance: 1) Elam or Elimais (in south-western Persia); 2) Nisibis; 3) the Lower Euphrates or Busra; 4) Assyria, or the district of Mosul and Arbela. These four metropolitan sees are said to have been established even before the Nicene Council. 5) Bet Garmai; 6) Pars or Fars (in southern Persia); 7) Merv; 8) Hulwan (Halah?); 9) Garyu (Herat?); 10) Hindustan; 11) China; 12) Samarkand; 13) Armenia; 14) Sham or Damascus. There were four others besides, which ceased to exist. The number and remoteness of these metropolitan sees testify to the missionary zeal of the ancestors of the Syro-Chaldeans at a time when “their numbers, together with the Jacobites, surpassed the Greek and Latin Churches.” Indeed, at one time the Syro-Chaldean Church counted 28 metropolitans, and it can now scarcely be doubted that the ancient missions of this Church extended as far as China, where on the celebrated monument of Singanfu “the history of the Nestorian Church is set forth from the first mission in the year 636 to the current year 781.” That latter year coincided with the time of the catholicos Khanisho, and the monument was erected by Yastbuzd, a priest and chorepiscopus of Chumdan—the then-capital of the Chinese Empire. Among these metropolitans, the bishop of Paris or Fars enjoyed special ceremonial privileges and could wear the biruna or mitre, as well as the pastoral staff until the end of the liturgy, like the patriarch, both at the throne and in the sanctuary.

At the present time, besides the metropolitan and the patriarch, there are three bishops in Persia and seven in Turkey; yet some of them hold only nominal dioceses. The patriarchal diocese, on the other hand, is enormous, far larger in extent than one man can administer, especially given the mountainous character of the country. It encompasses the greater part of the tribal Syro-Chaldeans. The other dioceses appear to be divided most inconveniently and are subject to frequent changes. In the plain of Urmia, at various times, there were several bishops; but either upon their deaths no nazorites were available, or for some other reason the vacancies were not filled, and these various dioceses were merged into two. In such a case the vacant see reverts to the patriarch, and he disposes of it as he sees fit.

The present-day manner of filling episcopal sees has already been described above. The old manner was quite different. Upon the death of a bishop, the metropolitan would convene the bishops of his province, proceed to the city, and summon an assembly; the entire assembly would then elect a suitable person, the choice falling most often upon a monk. The metropolitans and bishops would then ordain the elect, all laying their right hands upon him, while the metropolitan performed the actual service. The new bishop would then go with a special letter to the patriarch for confirmation. Several bishops were required to be assembled—at least three—and if there were no bishops in the given province, the metropolitan could summon bishops from other provinces. Special canons were enacted against the election of a person against his will; of a man convicted of any crime; against a bishop designating his own successor; and concerning the deposition of a bishop who had obtained his rank by simony. When a bishop was ordained, the metropolitan would send his chorepiscopus to enthrone him in his diocese, and within the jurisdiction of the bishop no one else could perform this. According to some testimonies, the cathedral city must give its consent to the appointment of whomever the metropolitan desires; according to others, the metropolitan must ordain whomever the cathedral city elects. The precedence of bishops was determined not by the time of their ordination but according to the antiquity of the founding of their sees; and the precedence of provinces was reckoned in the same manner. All bishops of the elder province took precedence over bishops of a newer province. A bishop in books and letters is referred to as a bishop, but the people simply call him abuna, that is, our father. In the plain of Mosul this last title is also given to the chief priests. In Urmia, when addressing a bishop, he is called mamu, that is, uncle. In the mountains he is called «my father,» «my beloved» (and this is the most frequent title), or «my most reverend one.»

The duties of the Syro-Chaldean bishop are quite complex and numerous, as he must engage closely with the life of the people. A considerable portion of his time is spent settling disputes, reconciling enemies, and investigating divorce cases, and often, especially in the mountains, other judicial matters as well. At times he must perform the curious duty of administering an oath. An oath is not always required of witnesses, but it is regarded as a kind of ordeal and is accorded great importance. It is not treated as a mere formality, but is performed by the bishop with various exhortations and moral admonitions. Sometimes, when the Muslim ruler in Urmia has no doubt about a particular case or is indifferent to it (having been equally bribed by both parties), he sends one of the litigants to the bishop for the taking of the oath. The bishop leads him into the church and, after several prayers, makes him swear on the Gospels and provides a certificate to that effect. An oath thus taken is regarded as supremely sacred by both Christians and Muslims alike. In general, when there are two litigants and the weight of evidence lies on the side of one, the other is given the choice: either to submit himself to the ordeal of the oath, or to have his adversary swear.

Every bishop was required to convene his diocesan council twice a year through his chorepiscopi, with the inhabitants of all villages coming to him to pay their respects and receive communion from him.

Many would come once a year as a rule. The sole surviving vestige of this custom is the present practice of villagers coming at Christmas and Pascha to receive the bishop’s festal blessing.

One can scarcely expect that a poor people such as the Syro-Chaldeans would contribute significant sums toward the maintenance of their clergy, and therefore even the bishops are often exceedingly poor. Most of them have small fields or vineyards, which are cultivated by their brothers and nephews, and in some cases by themselves. The greater part of the bishops’ income, however, is derived from what is called the rishita, or firstfruits, which the villagers voluntarily pay each year. Once every three years all the villages, as a rule, make an offering to the patriarch, and one of his relatives ordinarily makes the rounds of the various districts for this purpose. This is how the entire patriarchal household is supported. As for the incomes of parish priests, they are extremely meager; often a priest receives absolutely nothing from his parishioners, apart from what he can obtain on the occasion of weddings and baptisms. For this reason, ordination among the Syro-Chaldeans is not considered an obstacle to engaging in secular labor, and the greater part of the rural clergy supplement their livelihood through trade or other similar occupations.

The chief duty of the bishop consists in the ordination of presbyters and deacons; since the minor orders of subdeacons and readers have fallen into disuse, bishops ordain young men directly to the rank of deacon. Formerly, says the book attributed to Mar-Shimun Barsebaeus, chorepiscopi could ordain readers and subdeacons, but not priests or deacons; however this custom was abolished by «the council of the Chalcedonians.» One cannot but note the anachronism in a book purportedly belonging to the fourth century.

No such canon exists in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon. In all ordinations—of bishops as well as presbyters and deacons—only the right hand is laid upon the head of the one being ordained; this is stated explicitly in the canons and is indicated repeatedly in the old Syriac books. Perhaps this is explained by the fact that, in their interpretation, the Apostle Paul’s expression «they gave the right hand of fellowship» (Gal. 2:9) refers to ordination. Ordination is performed at the doors of the sanctuary, with the bishop first clipping the hair of the ordinand in the form of a cross. Ordination cannot be performed in an unconsecrated place; but when there were still deaconesses, they were ordained in the baptistery or in the «house of the deacon,» which is situated on the south side of the sanctuary and connected to it by a door. Priests and deacons are led up to the altar step by step by the bishop, who pronounces a prayer at each step. They prostrate themselves several times before the altar and receive from the bishop a kiss on the cheek, while they themselves kiss his hand. After the service, all the friends and acquaintances of the newly ordained persons kiss them and say: «may your ordination be blessed.» This is a very ancient custom, once universally observed. In the plain of Urmia, ordination is customarily followed by a feast.

At the present time the canonical age for ordination is very low. The Sunhadus states: «readers may not be ordained before the passing of boyhood, however learned they may be; subdeacons—when nearly adult; deacons—somewhat later; and priests—at about eighteen years of age. But by the ancient rule—not before thirty years.» The «Book of Heavenly Insights» is in agreement with this latter rule. In practice, priests are rarely ordained at eighteen, but the customary age for a deacon is ordinarily seventeen. Sometimes quite young men or even children are ordained to the rank of bishop when their predecessors die and no other nazorite is available; and it is not uncommon for boys to be ordained to the rank of deacon when they are no more than ten years old.

Although the parish priest receives little remuneration, he nonetheless enjoys great esteem in the village; in fact, he is generally the principal figure there and is accorded considerable honor; parishioners kiss his hand and respectfully call him «rabbi» or «rabbi kasha,» and at festal meals he occupies the place of honor. His duties are numerous. He «performs baptism and offers the sacrifice (the Eucharist), reads the Gospel from the ambo, betroths women, buries the dead, absolves sinners, and performs all the necessary parts of the priestly ministry, with the exception of consecrating the altar with oil; he receives transgressors back into communion, absolves sinners through penitence, binds and looses, for he has received the priesthood. He lays his hand upon the sick for their recovery.» He must settle minor disputes in agreement with his «white beards» (elders), who, it should be noted, exert considerable influence over the priest’s actions. But all the more important matters are subject to the bishop’s decision, both in practice and by law. A priest cannot pronounce an excommunication when a bishop is nearby.

A priest is almost always ordained in the very village where he was raised, and in fact he remains in that same village for the rest of his life. Strictly speaking, once a man has been dedicated to the service of a particular parish, he may not leave it and go elsewhere; equally, on the other hand, a priest cannot install someone else in his place, except in the case of some grave offense for which he has been convicted by a court. In this case the deposed priest may not seek another position. But if a priest wishes, not for the sake of gain, to leave his parish and transfer to another place, the bishop or visitor may grant him a release. The priest thus occupies a secure position, and it is generally very difficult for a bishop to remove him; but he cannot seek advancement with a view to obtaining greater material remuneration.

Parish priests are very frequently the sons of local priests, and the priesthood in a given village is thus often kept within the hands of the same household from generation to generation. There are no restrictions whatsoever regarding their marriage. Clerical celibacy was abolished in 499 at the council in Seleucia under catholicos Babaeus, when even catholici were permitted to marry. The Sunhadus indirectly permits clerical marriage by stating that monks may not marry, unlike other clergy and laypeople. In fact, unmarried priests are almost never encountered; in any case, they can be counted on the fingers of one hand. The clergy are permitted to marry even after ordination. In the marriage rite there is a special hymn appointed to be sung when the bridegroom is a priest. There are no prohibitions against repeated marriages either.

Priests today do not wear any distinctive dress in their everyday life, although in the mountains a black turban often serves—or indeed is generally—their distinguishing mark. To a Western observer it may seem rather strange to see a venerable clergyman with a large white beard dressed in a short jacket, as is constantly to be seen in the mountains of Kurdistan. In the plain of Urmia priests dress in colored robes and wear fur hats, but bishops wear turbans and long garments and look every bit the clergyman. The canons state that all clergy should be distinguished from laypeople in dress, tonsure, and the girding of their loins; they are not to wear rings or knives at their belts. One priest (kasha Daniel), in the village of Tsaiti in Tiari, has the hereditary right to wear a dagger, as he is one of the lineage of «guardians» (presumably against the Kurds of the neighboring district of Bervera). This perhaps dates from the time when, in 1843, Bedr-Khan Bek carried out a great massacre among the Christians.

The ancient law of Constantine the Great exempting clergy from taxation—which induced many unworthy persons to seek the lower orders of the priesthood—continues to be preserved in the regulation of the Persian government, by which parish priests may be exempt from the poll tax levied on all Christians in lieu of compulsory military service. Although this entails a saving of only about one and a half rubles per year, the privilege is highly valued and frequently gives rise to complaints to the government when a village headman or his agent collects the tax contrary to this law.

The procedure for selecting a parish priest described above is now observed almost exactly, except that the bishop acts as his own chorepiscopus. When a priest dies, the chorepiscopus is ordered to proceed to the given village, gather the villagers, and have them elect a parish priest for themselves. When this is done, the bishop ordains him. The elect can be ordained only by his own bishop, and even the metropolitan has no right to this; but the patriarch may ordain whomever he wishes. As a rule, every village of thirty to sixty Christian households should have its own priest. In practice, however, while many villages—especially in the plain of Urmia and in the raya districts of Turkey—have not a single priest, so that they must seek the services of a foreign priest from distant localities for their pastoral needs, many other villages have a considerable number of superfluous priests who may, perhaps, never in their entire lives have the opportunity to celebrate the Eucharist. In the village of Ashita in the district of Tiari there are no fewer than sixteen priests and more than seventy deacons at a single church. This is, of course, an absurdity, but villages often have many priests and deacons who are not infrequently ordained without proper examination and without any title. A bishop will sometimes conceive the idea of ordaining someone to the priesthood only on Saturday evening, and by Sunday morning he ordains him. He knows the man’s abilities through personal acquaintance or by report—since the ordained man will spend his entire life in the same village—and if he is able to read in the ancient Syriac language and thus to conduct the service, the bishop ordains him without any further examination. This, however, is not so great an evil as it might appear to a Western observer, since everyone knows the candidate’s qualities far better than is possible in the West, where the population is incomparably more mobile; and besides, the bishop is considerably guided by public opinion. He would hardly ordain a priest—and perhaps not even a deacon—if his villagers did not desire it. A far greater evil lies in the tendency of many priests of the Urmia plain to go begging to Russia, and often to other European countries as well. The Russian authorities make commendable efforts to stop this mendicancy; but it is very easy for a man bent on this course to cross the border in the guise of a layman and then exploit his sacred rank to obtain generous alms from Russian peasants. Many of these beggars travel under the name of pilgrims to holy places (mukdusi), and many anecdotes are told of their adventures. On one occasion, for instance, they found a dead donkey, and taking one of its legs, rolled it in the dirt so that it would appear to have lain there a long time; then, coming to a village, they began to tell people that this was the very leg of the donkey upon which the Saviour had made His entry into Jerusalem, assuring them that they had brought it with them from the Holy City. Having received a considerable sum for this leg, they then sold the three remaining legs in other villages and made a good deal of money. After this they should, of course, have returned home; but their greed got the better of them, and they found another donkey and began selling yet another leg. To their misfortune, however, news of this had by that time spread to all the surrounding villages, and since even every ignorant peasant knows that a donkey does not have five legs, the false pilgrims were seized, all their gains taken from them, and they themselves thrown into prison. This anecdote is probably an old one, but it well illustrates the stories that the people pass on to one another. It is sad that the heroes of these tales are almost always priests, and even sadder that many receive ordination with the sole aim of going to Russia to beg. But, as the author of the «Book of Heavenly Insights» says, although there are bad priests in the church, yet the way of God, which passes over their heads, is sure; and the offering which they make is pure, because it is sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and their baptism is likewise true, because the grace of God is not destroyed; and the people do not suffer on account of the unworthiness of the priest—only the priest himself suffers.

Deacons among the Syro-Chaldeans are absolutely indispensable, since neither the Eucharist nor baptism can be performed without them, and moreover a defined part in every service belongs to them. Hence deacons are numerous in the Syro-Chaldean Church, and they are ordained at an early age—so that almost every village has at least one deacon. Those villages that have no deacon make use of a deacon from a neighboring village. A priest likewise cannot celebrate the Eucharist without a deacon, nor a deacon without a priest, although if two priests are serving, one may serve in the capacity of deacon. A deacon is in essence no more than an acolyte; in practice he is never permitted to baptize, and only recently, in the plain of Urmia, have bishops begun to allow the more learned deacons to preach. There would therefore appear to be no reason why deacons should not be ordained at quite a young age. Their ordination is no impediment to their secular occupations or to their contracting marriage. There is hardly a deacon who does not work in the fields himself or pursue some trade. In justification of this they point to the example of the Apostle Paul. The diaconate is not regarded as a mere step toward the priesthood. Among the Syro-Chaldeans, ordination to the priesthood is considered a great step. A man often remains a deacon for his entire life, and frequently does not advance and does not even seek elevation to the higher rank. The good, old raban Ionan, who died a deacon, used to say that he was unworthy of ordination to the priesthood.

The duties of the deacon are to assist the priest at the celebration of the liturgy, to pronounce the prayers as well as the litanies. The Syro-Chaldean deacon also lights the candles and performs the censing, strikes the cymbals, draws back the curtain, pronounces «peace be with you» on behalf of the priest to the people; he may also make the sacred loaves for the consecration and for the antidoron, and prepare the chalice, though all of this is properly done by the priest; he tidies the sanctuary and «adorns the altar»; reads the Epistle on those—admittedly rare—occasions when it is read at all; pours water on the hands of the priest at the lavabo; and one deacon, vested in sacred vestments, holds a large plate for the priest during the communion of the people, while another holds the chalice itself.

The canons state that a young man may not be ordained even to the subdiaconate until he knows the psalms by heart. However remarkable the Syro-Chaldeans’ abilities in this regard may be, one may doubt whether any of them can recite the entire Psalter from memory, even among the priests. Before receiving ordination, deacons must obtain the consent of their parish priest and the laypeople of their village. The canons also state that there should be no more than seven deacons in a single village or town. But this regulation has long been a dead letter.

At one time the Syro-Chaldeans had deaconesses, who have survived only in very few localities. They must be sixty years of age, and their duty consists in assisting at the baptism of adult women.

In the Syro-Chaldean ecclesiastical books, besides subdeacons and readers, the following are also recognized: 1) exorcists, who must be monks; they are not ordained, but simply receive authorization from the bishop. They no longer exist; 2) sacristans, who must be deacons or priests. They take care of the sanctuary, prepare the elements for the chalice, and together with the priest consume what remains of the Holy Sacrament; 3) stewards (oeconomi), who have charge of the church vessels; 4) doorkeepers, who have charge of the enclosure, summon the people to prayer by striking the semantron (nakusha)—that is, an oblong board which in old churches takes the place of a bell—and who also announce to the faithful when someone has died, so that all may be present at the burial. The last three offices exist to this day.

The Syro-Chaldeans no longer have monasteries. The old monks did not eat meat and had only one full meal in the course of a day. In this they were guided by the rules set forth in the Sunhadus. The monasteries belonged to the dioceses and were placed under the oversight of visitors (periadute), who were the bishop’s representatives and were accountable to him for them. But some monasteries were independent and were under the authority of the patriarch. No outside bishop, not even a metropolitan, could enter them except in exceptional circumstances and as a guest, and they were, in the strict sense, considered independent of diocesan administration.