[Footnote 118: The Christianity of China, between the
seventh and the thirteenth century, is invincibly proved by
the consent of Chinese, Arabian, Syriac, and Latin evidence,
(Assemanni, Biblioth. Orient. tom. iv. p. 502 - 552. Mem.
de l'Academie des Inscript. tom. xxx. p. 802 - 819.) The
inscription of Siganfu which describes the fortunes of the
Nestorian church, from the first mission, A.D. 636, to the
current year 781, is accused of forgery by La Croze,
Voltaire, &c., who become the dupes of their own cunning,
while they are afraid of a Jesuitical fraud.
Note: This famous monument, the authenticity of which many
have attempted to impeach, rather from hatred to the
Jesuits, by whom it was made known, than by a candid
examination of its contents, is now generally considered
above all suspicion. The Chinese text and the facts which
it relates are equally strong proofs of its authenticity.
This monument was raised as a memorial of the establishment
of Christianity in China. It is dated the year 1092 of the
era of the Greeks, or the Seleucidae, A.D. 781, in the time
of the Nestorian patriarch Anan-jesu. It was raised by
Iezdbouzid, priest and chorepiscopus of Chumdan, that is, of
the capital of the Chinese empire, and the son of a priest
who came from Balkh in Tokharistan. Among the various
arguments which may be urged in favor of the authenticity of
this monument, and which has not yet been advanced, may be
reckoned the name of the priest by whom it was raised. The
name is Persian, and at the time the monument was
discovered, it would have been impossible to have imagined
it; for there was no work extant from whence the knowledge
of it could be derived. I do not believe that ever since
this period, any book has been published in which it can be
found a second time. It is very celebrated amongst the
Armenians, and is derived from a martyr, a Persian by birth,
of the royal race, who perished towards the middle of the
seventh century, and rendered his name celebrated among the
Christian nations of the East. St. Martin, vol. i. p. 69.
M. Remusat has also strongly expressed his conviction of the
authenticity of this monument. Melanges Asiatiques, P. i. p.
33. Yet M. Schmidt (Geschichte der Ost Mongolen, p. 384)
denies that there is any satisfactory proof that much a
monument was ever found in China, or that it was not
manufactured in Europe. But if the Jesuits had attempted
such a forgery, would it not have been more adapted to
further their peculiar views? - M.]