Of these the largest and certainly the most interesting is that

which commemorates the brave deeds of the beautiful virgin from

Rome. In designing the church of the Holy Ripsime the architect has

been faithful to the essential features of that of Edgmiatsin--the

quadruple apse and the central dome. But the problem before him

was how to eliminate the unsightly projections of the apsidal arms,

and how to rear the whole fabric by successive stages to the crown

of the dome. His solution of the problem, if somewhat rudimentary

and fantastic, is certainly successful from the point of view of

looks (Fig. 57 and plan). My reader will of course eliminate the

portal and belfry in appreciating this piece of architecture. They

were added, the portal in 1653 by the Katholikos Philippos, and

the belfry in 1790. He will observe that the outer walls compose a

rectangular figure; and a moment's reflection will show him that

such a figure could only be presented by a stupendous thickening

of the wall on either side of each apse. This difficulty has

been in part surmounted by the introduction of niches, two for

each apsidal recess. These external niches are nearly six feet

deep on the north and south sides, a little shallower on the

west and east. The treatment of this feature is quite inchoate;

but we shall see it in perfection at Ani. At the same time it

is evident that provision had to be made for a side chapel on

either side of the apse on the east. These have been supplied

according to a design which I have not seen elsewhere, although

it appears to be repeated in the church of Sion in the valley of

the Tana, a tributary of the Kur, erected at the end of the tenth

century. [167] Between the four apsidal recesses of the interior

are inserted the narrow openings of four circular and much smaller

cavities, communicating by doors which are almost imperceptible

with rectangular chambers or chapels. Of these chambers the two

on the east provide the requirements of the church, while those

on the west were probably added for uniformity. [168] The effect

of the eight recesses, crowned by a dome of unusual diameter

for the size of the structure, [169] is extremely pleasing to

the eye; and St. Ripsime is the most impressive ecclesiastical

edifice which I have yet presented to my reader. The drum of the

dome has sixteen sides; besides the windows which it contains,

light is admitted through bold apertures in each of the apsidal

recesses. Standing beneath the dome, one admires the great height

of the building. The interior measurements are a length of 74

feet 1 inch and a breadth of 58 feet 4 inches.

The question of the date of Ripsime is again not free from

difficulty. We know that the Katholikos Komitas rebuilt the

church in A.D. 618; [170] nor, so far as I have been able to

ascertain, do we possess records of any subsequent change in the

plan. Students of architecture may be inclined to assign it to a

later period. The tomb of the martyr is placed in a grotto beneath

the apse on the east. [171] Just west of the portal there is a low

building, serving as a residence for monks, and, adjoining it,

an enclosure for cows. Church and cloister are surrounded by a

high mud wall, with round towers at the angles.

St. Gaiane is an edifice of much humbler architectural pretensions,

which is said to date from the pontificate of Ezra (A.D. 628-640)

(Fig. 58 and plan). [172] The porch was added, as we learn from

an inscription, in the year 1687 by the Katholikos Eleazar. It

serves as a place of burial for the pontiffs and contains many

alabaster slabs. On the north side have been inserted in the

archway of a wide aperture two old Armenian crosses, framed within

an ornamental trophy. Entering the building from this portal we

are impressed with its simplicity; and this feeling is enhanced

by the absence of all decoration, the beautiful masonry being

left without any covering of lime. The architect has wisely

dispensed with the quadruple apse, and has contented himself

with one. But he has retained the rectangular form of the side

chapels, and he has separated them by a wall from the body of

the building. Four detached piers support a dome which is much

smaller than that of Ripsime, but resembles it in the sense of

great height which it lends to the interior. The length of the

building is 70 feet 2 inches, and the breadth 47 feet. The vault,

containing the grave of Gaiane, is approached from one of the side

chapels, and is covered by a simple stone with a little carpet,

upon which devotees offer coins. The adjacent cloister consists

of a humble building on the south-west. The church is surrounded

by tombs. Lying against the north wall are some interesting old

stones, one of which is exquisitely sculptured (Fig. 59). It

probably constituted a boundary-stone, and may have been brought

hither as an offering to the saint. The two figures which are seen

in my illustration of the building represent opposite types among

the inhabitants of Edgmiatsin. The white-headed abbot on the left

belongs to the old school, with habits and standards which are not

agreeable or exalted. That on the right is the figure of Dr. Arshak

Ter-Mikelean, fresh from the atmosphere of a German university.

The third and smallest of the churches marks the site of the

wine-press, where the holy martyrs sojourned and where St. Gregory

resided after his release from the pit at Artaxata. It is situated

to the north-east of Edgmiatsin and to the west of St. Ripsime. It

bears the name of Shoghakath, or Effusion of Light. I was informed

that the attendants of Saints Ripsime and Gaiane were buried in

a vault on the south side of the apse. [173] In disposition the

building resembles St. Gaiane; but it is much longer (58 feet 2

inches) in comparison with its breadth (24 feet 8 inches). We learn

from an inscription over the door of the church that the portal was

added by the Katholikos Nahapet in A.D. 1693. The belfry is due to

the same pontiff; [174] his grave is conspicuous within the portal

(Fig. 60 and plan). The dome rests on four massive piers attached

to the wall. The joints of the pink and grey stone are visible in

the interior, as in the case of the two buildings described; and so

admirably are they fitted that one would regret the introduction

of any internal decoration. A scrutiny of the exterior reveals

the fact that the church has been most carefully restored, stones

having been removed here and there and replaced. Brosset informs

us that mention is made in certain records of Armenian Councils

of the construction by Nerses III. (A.D. 640-649) in the town of

Vagharshapat of a church of Shoghakath; but he supposes--it would

appear upon inconclusive evidence--that this name is intended to

designate the cathedral, Edgmiatsin. [175] If it be taken to refer

to the wine-press chapel, then all three edifices will have been

rebuilt in the seventh century by the testimony of records. I

may add that according to an inscription in the monastery of

Uch Kilisa, near Diadin, that cloister was also restored in the

seventh century. [176] If the buildings as we now see them were

erected in that century, the framework at least of Edgmiatsin

must be attributed to an earlier date.

I return from this detailed description of the cathedral and the

chapels of the martyrs to the more general tenour of the contents of

this chapter. Edgmiatsin is rapidly developing into a home of the

higher education, and it enjoys the proud privilege of possessing

an institution which is unique in all Armenia for the comparatively

exalted standard of the course of study which it provides. The Academy

at once dispenses the usual curriculum of a seminary and supplies

a higher course, extending over three years. Such an excessive

disporting in the realms of dangerous knowledge was only sanctioned

by the Russian Government on the understanding that the privilege

should be confined to candidates for the priesthood. The nature of

their profession may have appeared a sufficient guarantee that the

learning imparted would be strictly subordinated to "views." Besides,

there was always the safeguard that the curriculum must be submitted

to the Russian bureaucracy, and approved in due course by these

aureoled arbiters, enthroned above the shifting mists and slippery

quagmires among which poor Knowledge often faints and sometimes

sinks. Her youngest and hardiest offspring, pertinacious Natural

Science, has been excluded from these intellectual preserves; and I

was assured that the mere mention of the name of this arch-enemy in a

prospectus would produce the same effect among the august censors as

a challenge from the prince of devils among the blessed. The course

is confined to theology, history and literature, foreign as well

as Armenian. To these subjects is added a study which the Germans

have developed under the name of Pädagogik. Within this formula,

I was given to understand, are included at Edgmiatsin, besides the

art of the teacher, a certain general knowledge of philosophy and

psychology. The students are obliged to pass a certain standard by

examination at the end of each year.

The idea of founding such an institution was conceived by Nerses

V. (d. 1857), whose liberal mind sought to satisfy by this

project the needs of his countrymen both in secular and religious

education. [177] His proposal was rejected by the Russian Government,

and he was himself sent into honorary exile. Better fortune attended

the instances of George IV.; and the Academy was actually founded

during his pontificate in 1873 or 1874. An inscription over the door

records that the principal aim of the founder was the encouragement of

the study of Armenian theology and literature. It is interesting to

note that the bulk of the scholars do not in fact become enrolled in

the priesthood. As a rule there are about 150 to 200 students in the

various grades of the seminary and the academy; but I was informed that

during the last ten years only about 15 had taken orders. The rest have

become teachers in the Armenian schools, or migrated to universities

in Russia, or adopted professional or commercial pursuits. I enquired

as to the nature of the instruction in theology, and learnt that until

the year 1892 that pompous term had been applied to a simple course of

religious instruction. In that year a promising scholar who had been

sent to Germany for education appeared upon the scene. I have already

mentioned the name of Dr. Arshak Ter-Mikelean; he took his degree

in the University of Jena, and now presides over the theological

course. At the time of my visit two young Armenians were studying

theology at Leipzic at the expense of the Armenian Church. At the

same date the students in the academical course numbered about forty.

My reader is aware that in Russian Armenia the word seminarist does

not necessarily apply exclusively to candidates for the priesthood. The

seminary is nothing more than the highest grade in the Armenian school

system, with the single exception of the more exalted course provided

by this Academy. The great majority of the pupils are maintained

out of the revenues of the cloister; but those who are able pay

what they can. A youth enters the seminary when about thirteen or

fourteen years old, and the academy at about nineteen or twenty. Both

institutions are housed in the same building. Each diocese is invited

to make a certain number of presentations; and boys and young men are

encouraged to come from the Turkish provinces. As a matter of fact

few are able to avail themselves of the offer. The scholars reside

within the building, one dormitory being allotted to the academy and

another to the seminary. These dormitories are kept scrupulously neat

and clean. There is a fine music room with a grand piano, and there

is also a nice library with casts of the immortal works of Greek

sculpture illuminating the shadows above the shelves. How strange

they seem in this distant land, where the study of the classics is

not included even in the higher education!

The effect which is being produced upon the character of the monastic

priests by the wise solicitude for education which has characterised

the Armenian movement is almost incalculable. In old days the monks

were chosen by the bishops from among their attendants; and this custom

obtained even after the development of seminarial instruction within

the cloister. But in 1892 the synod issued a decree enjoining that,

except in very special circumstances, no person should be ordained monk

who had not passed through a seminary. He is nominated by the bishop,

but must be approved by the synod. It is a pity that hitherto no steps

have been taken to raise the standard of the ordinary clergy. But we

must admit that it would not be easy to effect such a reform from

above. For all practical purposes we may count three grades in the

hierarchy of the Armenian Church. In the first figure the bishops, the

second comprises the monks and parish priests, and the third includes

the deacons. Over all three is exalted the authority of the katholikos,

the keystone of the dome of the edifice. Celibacy is imposed upon

the bishops and monks, while marriage is rendered obligatory upon the

parish priests. Thus a sharp division exists between the two orders of

clergy, arising out of a complete difference in mode of life. Moreover

the ordinary clergy are elected by the laity--a custom to which the

people jealously cling. The inhabitants of a town or village select

their future pastor from among their own number. Of course the bishop

might refuse to ordain. But such a course would only be warranted in

very special circumstances; the same being predicated of the right

of the bishop to depose a priest. Thus the parish clergy occupy a

special and somewhat independent position. In the rural districts

the spread of education has not yet commenced to touch them; nor will

they emerge from their present deplorable debasement until a general

quickening of public opinion shall take place.

The monks or celibate priests are, I believe, always connected with

convents; they are known under the style of vardapet, or doctor, which

is attached to their individual names. They are governed according

to the rule of St. Basil of Cæsarea, the contemporary and monitor of

the Armenian pontiff, Nerses the Great (A.D. 340-374). They do not

practise the tonsure, and they wear their beards. They are attired

in long black robes with conical cowls. Their numbers must have

considerably diminished since 1700, at which date we are informed this

convent alone contained over a hundred monks. [178] At present there

are in all not more than some fifty vardapets within the wide limits

of the Russian provinces. Of these about half reside at Edgmiatsin. As

members of the synod or as bursars, as overseers of the printing press

or as editors of the official journal, Ararat, their profession is no

sinecure. All monks in Russian territory are ordained at Edgmiatsin,

and it is the custom for all bishops, whether in Russian Armenia or

abroad, to be consecrated in the church of the Illuminator.

The revenues dispensed by the katholikos are derived from several

sources. There is the property of the monastery, consisting of lands

and villages in the valley of the Araxes and elsewhere, to which,

in the absence of statutes of mortmain, additions are constantly

being made. The income from this source and from offerings and

contributions of various kinds amounts, I believe, to about £8000 a

year. The general property of the Church is also administered from

Edgmiatsin, the synod being specially invested with this important

function. Donations in lands or money are frequently forthcoming, and

are devoted to the support of the various institutions. The accounts

of the monasteries and bishoprics in Russia are audited and passed

by the synod. But the clergy are supported by their own flocks; and,

beyond submitting their accounts to the proper authority, the parishes

are practically autonomous.

There can be little doubt that the overseeing by the katholikos and

synod of the administration of the funds of the Church in Russia has

already effected a salutary change. Should Russia become possessed of

the Turkish provinces, and should her counsels incline to the sounder

policy of encouraging the Armenians to work out their salvation in

their own way, this concentration is likely to promote a general reform

of the Armenian clergy. The authority of the katholikos at the present

day extends to practically all Armenians professing the national

religion. That authority suffered division during the troubled period

of long duration which followed the overthrow of the Bagratid dynasty

(A.D. 1045) and the gradual dispersal of the Armenian people. But the

Katholikos of Sis has quite recently professed his spiritual allegiance

to Edgmiatsin; [179] and the recluse of Akhtamar, that beauteous island

in the lake of Van, alone continues pretence to the title and station

of a supreme pontiff. His jurisdiction is confined to his rock and a

few villages on the mainland. The patriarchate of Constantinople is

an institution which is the result of political exigencies, and which

in no way derogates from the spiritual supremacy of the successor of

St. Gregory, enthroned in the cloister near the banks of the Araxes.

My reader has perhaps divined from a perusal of the foregoing

paragraphs that an interesting feature of the Armenian Church is

the power enjoyed by the laity, which indeed may be described as

predominant. With them rests the choice of the ordinary clergy, and in

practice their voice prevails in the selection of a katholikos. That

Church is indeed a compromise, so far as her ministers are concerned,

between opposite principles in the organisation of Christianity. The

monastic priests represent the principle of elevating a hierarchy into

a position of lofty independence. From among their ranks are taken the

bishops. But the great body of the clergy are strictly the ministers

of the people, supported by their voluntary contributions. From these

conclusions, derived from a study of contemporary conditions, I pass

to a brief examination of the Edgmiatsin legend, and of the history

and character of that interesting ecclesiastical edifice which rises

in the background of all that I have written in the present chapter.

The Armenians boast that the Gospel was preached to their ancestors

by the first apostles, and that they were the first people to adopt

Christianity as the religion of the State. They separate these two

events by a respectable interval, for they attribute the conversion

of king and people to a miracle performed by St. Gregory towards the

close of the third century. We have seen that the current version

of that miracle comprises a vision by which Jesus Christ becomes in

effect the Founder of their cathedral church. The inference is perhaps

legitimate that they hold their own Church, as an organisation, to

have been established by Christ Himself; and its independence of all

hierarchies, whether of the East or of the West, to be based upon the

same supreme sanction. [180] We are carried back by a discussion of

these claims to the very dawn of the Christian religion; and it will

be wise to keep them before us as prominent landmarks to control the

discursiveness of an enquiry which must also be brief.

I. The apostles mentioned by Armenian writers as having carried the

Gospel into Armenia are St. Bartholomew, St. Thaddeus--the son or

brother of St. James--St. Simon and St. Jude. [181] Of these the two

first named are alone in general repute. But the fame of St. Thaddeus

reposes upon no less a title than that of having executed a commission

from Jesus Christ Himself to the court of an Arsakid king of Lower

Armenia or Mesopotamia, whom the Armenians claim as one of their own

royal line. King Abgar of Edessa is said to have corresponded with

the Saviour and to have begged Him to come to his capital and heal

him of a malady. The letter is preserved which purports to contain

the reply of Jesus, to the effect that after His ascension He would

despatch one of the disciples. With this epistle came a portrait

of the features of the Redeemer, which in subsequent times was the

peculiar pride of Edessa. In due course the disciple arrived in the

person of St. Thaddeus, and the king was restored to health. Monarch

and people embraced the Christian faith. After the death of Abgar,

which appears to have taken place at no long interval, his dominions

were divided between his son and nephew. The former returned at once

to the religion of his ancestors and reopened the temples of the

gods. The latter, who seems to have reigned over a portion of Armenia

proper, and who bore the name of Sanatruk, was visited by the apostle

and embraced the faith. But fear of the Armenian nobles compelled the

ruler to apostatise; the disciple was overwhelmed by the storm which he

had himself aroused, and perished in the border province of Armenia

on the side of Persia, in the country which receives the eastern

slopes of Ararat. [182] The legend of Abgar and his correspondence

has provoked the attack of modern criticism and has perished in the

unequal affray. [183] But the preaching and martyrdom of St. Thaddeus

at the hands of King Sanatruk are well known to one of the earliest

and most reliable of Armenian historians; and the same authority of

the fourth century speaks of the throne of the Armenian pontiffs

as the chair of St. Thaddeus. [184] In the absence of conclusive

evidence that this saint did not preach in Armenia I shall prefer to

suppose that he did. The name of St. Bartholomew is often mentioned in

connection with that of St. Thaddeus; he is said to have been active

in the mountainous region to the south of Lake Van, and to have been

flayed alive by the same monarch who put his colleague to death. [185]

These stories were perhaps invented at a comparatively late period. We

are on surer ground when we surmise that Christianity was professed

in Armenia long anterior to the miraculous cure of King Tiridates and

his conversion by St. Gregory. Indeed it would be strange if such had

failed to be the case. The interposition of one vast desert between

the Holy Land and Armenia is a comparatively modern geographical

fact. It is due entirely to bad government. In the first century the

two countries were united by a long string of cities, the populous

capitals of the low-lying districts. From such centres as Edessa and

Nisibis the religion was carried into the border ranges, and over

the passes to the plains of the tableland. There the first regions

designated by Nature to receive the new culture were situated in the

fertile country about the shores of Lake Van, and further east around

the margin of Lake Urmi. As early as the middle of the third century

we hear of an Armenian bishop, whose name, that of Merujan, would

naturally connect him with the great Artsruni family, which possessed

extensive territories in the neighbourhood of Van and subsequently

furnished to that country a line of mediæval kings. [186] It is also

probable that the Archelaus, in whose mouth is placed a disputation

with Mani towards the close of the same century (c. A.D. 275-277),

was bishop of a see not far removed from Van. [187] These early

ecclesiastics would almost certainly have made use of the Syriac

character, and it is more than likely that many among them were

Syrians. Their activity and the circle of their disciples may not have

extended to Northern Armenia; although there is presumptive evidence to

show that the Christianity of Albania (Eastern Caucasus or Daghestan)

and Siunik (country around Lake Gökcheh and part of Karabagh) dated

back to pre-Gregorian times. [188] It seems at first sight strange that

the earliest historians, such as Agathangelus and Faustus, maintain

silence upon this older Christianity of their native land; but the

edict of Tiridates against the enemies of paganism, preserved in the

earliest source of the first of these works, implies the existence of

Christians within the limits of his dominions whom the king persecutes

after the example of his colleagues at Rome; and the luminous argument

of one of the latest scholars in this field carries conviction that

the priestly compiler Agathangelus and the monk Faustus had good

reasons to ignore this pre-Gregorian Christianity, as being opposed

to the character of the later orthodoxy. [189] The big gap left by

Armenian writers between the preaching of the apostles and the advent

of St. Gregory in narrating the religious history of their country

is in itself a suspicious fact; Armenian vanity was satisfied by the

connection of their ancestors with the first disciples, and would not

be wounded by a temporary relapse; but the laborious methods of modern

research are year by year illuminating the interval, and removing

the shroud which is perhaps due to ecclesiastical prejudice or fraud.

What was the nature of this early Christianity which made its way

in despite of persecution among a barbarous people, professing a

crude and perhaps unamiable form of paganism? It is difficult to

believe that the religion of the first Christians resembled even

remotely the later State religion of the Roman Empire, which under

the name of Christianity was spread over the world by the imperial

armies and has been bequeathed as a troublesome legacy to the modern

world. The origins of this great spiritual movement are veiled in

twilight; but from the shadows and uncertain glimmer shines forth a

Personality which no doubts and no disappointments can assail. Round

this Personality centred many and diverse spiritual conceptions,

old as time itself and young as time. They were quickened into new

life by the emotional quality of a great example; and they were kept

alive and made to focus upon the domain of morality by the daily and

intimate intercourse of the members of a brotherhood which should

embrace all the creatures of God. It is essential to the fruitfulness

of such a community that they should maintain, not internal discipline

nor even the agreement of the members upon matters of doctrine among

themselves, but the enthusiasm which prompted their first efforts,

a high sense of individual responsibility among the members, and the

habit of mutual tolerance, mutual help, mutual consolation, and, above

all, of mutual love. The simple ceremonies of the early Church were

calculated to promote this spirit. The candidate was admonished by

the rite of baptism of the serious nature of the resolve which he had

taken to break with the world of sense and appearance, and to become

initiated into the higher meaning and purpose by which it is supported

and inspired. The fast redressed the balance between the soul and the

unruly flesh; and the agapes or love-feasts induced a close communion

among the brothers, the necessary corollary to communion with God.

It is scarcely open to doubt that the theoretical side of the religion

was not defined by any rigid formula. "Tell me," says Archelaus,

"over whom it was that the Holy Spirit descended like a dove. Who

is this one whom John baptizes? If He was already perfect, if He was

already the Son, if He was already Virtue, the Holy Spirit could not

have entered into Him; a kingdom cannot enter into a kingdom. Whose

was the voice which came from heaven and bore testimony to Him: 'This

is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased'?" It is clear that the

theory of Archelaus was of an adoptionist nature, or, in other words,

that he believed Jesus to have been adopted as the Son of God by the

descent of the Holy Spirit at the baptism. It is also plain that he

was not arguing as an irresponsible disputant, but as giving voice

to a strong current of orthodox opinion in his Church, as opposed

to the docetic teaching of Mani, representing Jesus as a heavenly

spirit assuming the mask of man. Other currents there certainly were

in other dioceses than that of Archelaus, and perhaps even among

his own flock. But there seems strong reason for believing that the

adoptionist Christology was firmly established towards the close of

the third century in outlying portions of the Roman Empire and among

the Christian communities outside its pale. [190] In Antioch it had

been suppressed in the person of Bishop Paul of Samosata after the

overthrow of his patron, Zenobia, queen of Palmyra, by the Emperor

Aurelian in the year 272. The weight of the Empire was placed in the

scale of those tendencies which were to crystallise in the celebrated

formula of Nice (A.D. 325): Christ a very God, begotten of God, but

not a creature of God; Son of God, of one nature with the Father; Who

came down from heaven, and took flesh, and became man, and suffered

and ascended into heaven; Who was before He was begotten and Who has

always been. The same Council of Nice enjoined that the followers of

Bishop Paul, or Pauliani, should be re-baptized before admission to the

Church. The recalcitrant were driven out into the mountain fastnesses,

where after the lapse of several centuries and under the Armenian

terminology of Paulicians (Paulikean), the inheritors of their spirit

again emerge as a sharp thorn in the side of the orthodox Churches

both of Constantinople and of Armenia. The history of the wholesale

persecutions of this hardy people by the successors of the Cæsars

during the ninth century, and of the successful reprisals which they

made, is outside the scope of these remarks; they were driven into the

arms of the Mohammedan Power, and their decimation by the imperial

armies drove another nail into the coffin which was being prepared

for the cancerous body of the Roman Empire.

The connection of the assailants of Armenian orthodoxy, who were known

as Paulicians, with their namesakes in the more westerly provinces of

the Empire, and of these with Paul of Samosata, has not yet, perhaps,

in spite of the luminous researches of the scholar I have quoted, been

sufficiently worked out. But we rise from a perusal of his work with

the conviction that this connection was at least of the nature of a

strong family resemblance dating back to apostolic times. The important

document which he has disinterred from the library at Edgmiatsin,

and of which the title suggests the hopes that were excited in the

breast of Socrates by the pretensions of a certain work of Anaxagoras,

affords us a full and detailed, if partially mutilated account of the

religious profession of the descendants of these Armenian heretics,

as copied from previous copies by a member of the sect in 1782. The

same voice which found expression in the disputation of Archelaus

rings out from the pages of the Key of Truth not less clearly than

of old. Jesus is human, though free from sin, until He is baptized

by John in the Jordan when He has reached His thirtieth year. Then

the Spirit of the Father, descending upon Him, fills Him with the

Godhead. After adoption the elect Christ is forthwith led up to the

mountain, where He enjoys the mystery of intercourse with the Father

for forty days. Baptism must therefore constitute a central event

in the life of the Christian, or imitator of Christ. He must come

to baptism after the full awakening of his individual conscience to

a knowledge of sin and to the nature of repentance. He must come

at mature age, when the heats of youth are passed and his natural

instincts have been brought under control. No remission of sins can

be effective until he shall have reached this age; nor is baptism

under other circumstances more than an empty form. Through baptism he

becomes a Christian; and the meal which follows baptism is the symbol

of that feast of divine converse with God of which the Son of God,

after His adoption, partook. The Holy Ghost enters the catechumen

immediately after baptism, and he in effect becomes filled with the

spirit of God. The note of aversion to hierarchical grades which is

struck in this treatise was no doubt accentuated by the opposition

of the sect to the methods of their natural enemies, the Orthodox

Church. But their polity--if the word may stand--could in this respect

be based on Scripture; and it encouraged that sense of individual

responsibility and that habit of self-reliance which are not less

effective qualities in the domain of evangelical enterprise than the

opposite methods of the Jesuits. The elect of God composed a body of

which each member was sublimely conscious of his resolve to pursue

a life of ideal justice by communion with the spirit which resided

in himself. The example which they set was not that of a selected

and exotic hierarchy, but was the example of simple peasants and

artisans. When we meet such people, whatever the proximate origin

of their particular tenets, we take farewell with a tear and perhaps

with a sigh. The Dukhobortsy, of whom I have spoken, would find much

in the manual of these Armenian adoptionists with which those resolute

children of the Reformation in Europe would cordially agree.

Traces of adoptionism are to be found in the teaching of St. Gregory

himself and in the early institutions of the Armenian State

Church. We must regret that what is probably the earliest source for

our knowledge of that teaching has not yet been translated into one

of our Western tongues. [191] In one passage the saint instructs us

that the Spirit, coming down at the Baptism, gave to Jesus the glory

which became His. John the Baptist is represented as the depositary

of the Divine favours conferred of old upon Israel; and it was he

who conferred these favours--priesthood, prophecy and kingship--upon

our Lord Jesus Christ. [192] It is, I think, scarcely fair to argue

from such passages that the Christianity of Gregory was, as a whole,

of an adoptionist type. But it is interesting to remember in this

connection that the Armenians celebrate the birth and the baptism

of Christ upon one and the same day, the 6th of January. And we may

perhaps be surprised to read that in the canons of St. Sahak, one of

the pillars of the early State Church (390-439), the feast of the

birth of Christ is not included in the list of festivals which are

formulated in some detail. [193] We know that St. Gregory himself

brought to Armenia with great pomp certain relics of St. John the

Baptist; and the number of monasteries in Armenia which are dedicated

to the hermit on the Jordan testify to the peculiar veneration in which

he has been held. But the influence of orthodoxy in the West must early

have restrained these adoptionist tendencies; and it is not improbable

that they became identified with that stubborn heresy of their native

land which is often mentioned and deplored by Armenian writers. [194]

There are reasons for supposing that the Messalianism (meteslenuthium)

against which is directed a cruel canon of the Armenian Council of

Shahapivan, convened in about the middle of the fifth century, was in

effect a manifestation of this native heresy, and was identical with

the Paulicianism which was specifically stigmatised by a canon of the

Council held in Dvin (valley of the Araxes) in the year 719. The first

of these synods enacted that priests convicted of Messalianism should

be branded on the forehead with the figure of a fox. This particular

punishment was the same which was meted out to the Paulicians of

Armenia during the persecutions of the eleventh century. The Council

of Dvin forbade all intercourse with members of this sect under pain

of heavy punishments. The pontiff of the day, John the Philosopher,

composed a tract against them, in which he speaks of them as dregs of

the incestuous flock of the Paulicians, and informs us that they had

been placed under a ban by Nerses Katholikos, under which name he is

probably alluding to Nerses III. (640-661). [195] He represents them as

joining hands with certain refugees from the Albanian Church (Eastern

Caucasus) who were opposed to the use of images. There is at least

a family resemblance between these sectaries of the eighth century

and those who, under the name of Thonraki (Thonraketzi), suffered

persecution in the tenth and eleventh centuries at the hands of the

Armenian State Church. Their fiercest adversary, Gregory Magistros,

who in the middle of the eleventh century carried fire and sword

into their mountain retreats, alludes to them as having imbibed the

poison of Paul of Samosata, and adds the important statement that their

proximate founder was one Sembat, and that for 170 years they had been

continuously admonished and anathematised by successive patriarchs and

bishops of Armenia as well as of Albania. [196] Their seats in Armenia

were in the radial mountain mass of the Ala Dagh (Thonrak), in Sasun,

south of Mush, and in the neighbourhood of Khinis, whence were derived

the band who were the object of perhaps the latest persecution, that of

1837-45. It was on this occasion that the documentary proof of their

professions was wrested from them and taken to Edgmiatsin. It is the

book entitled the Key of Truth. The plain of Khinis contained members

of this sect into quite recent times; but they suffered severely

owing to the customary powers possessed by the heads of the Gregorian

community in Turkey to inflict corporal punishment upon members of

their own flock. The sectaries were not recognised by the Government

as an independent religion. Not many years ago the remnant came over

to the American missionaries and embraced the Protestant faith.

II. What does my reader know about the ancient history of Armenia? At

least he remembers the wonderful march of Xenophon (401-400 B.C.),

who crossed the entire block of the Armenian tableland from the

plains of Mesopotamia to the Black Sea. At that time the country

was under the overlordship of the Achæmenian king of Persia--that

splendid dynasty which was at length destroyed by a great wave from

Europe, and of which the latest champion was murdered by a satrap of

Bactria after his decisive defeat in the belt of mountains south of

Lake Van by Alexander the Great (331 B.C.). The name of the Greek

hero is still alive in Southern Armenia, sharing the honours in

this respect with Solomon. Perhaps our next familiar memory will be

the visit of Hannibal to the court of Artaxias, one of the numerous

governors in the empire of the successors of Alexander, and a ruler

whose territory embraced the scene of these travels. [197] Nor are

we likely to have forgotten the recoil of the East upon the West

which took place under the leadership of the picturesque Mithradates,

that strangely composite embodiment of two diverse cultures. Behind

Mithradates looms the power of a great king of Armenia, whom, again,

we know as a scion of a new dynasty which had arisen in Asia--the

Arsakid or Parthian dynasty. With these Arsakid kings of Armenia we

are fairly familiar; the Parthian archers ride unrevenged through the

polished verse of Horace, and the Arsakids of Persia and Armenia supply

the pages of Tacitus with several lively interludes to his throbbing

narrative. Some acquaintance with these various events is part of the

equipment of most among us--a little less or a little more. We may

learn a great deal more of the subsequent history of Armenia; but

from what sources shall we collect material for a fuller knowledge

of the older period? The Armenian historians are all but worthless;

the West was little inquisitive; and even now we can scarcely answer

the leading questions: whence the Armenians came to the seats which

they have occupied throughout the historical period, and how they

fared in culture, in art, or in arms. Upon these subjects the Fool

is almost as well instructed as the Wise Man; we search the mists in

vain for any definite image; till from among them emerge the thrones

of these Arsakids--a Northern or Scythian dynasty, holding Persia as

well as Armenia, and crowning a polity which was of a strongly feudal

type. [198]

The last of the kings of this dynasty who ruled over Persia was the

ally and kinsman of the father of King Tiridates, who was destined,

after much vicissitude of fortune, to embrace Christianity and to

adopt it as the religion of the State. Ardavan and Chosroes were

seated on the thrones of Persia and Armenia, when a prince of the

Persian province which is now known under the name of Fars (Shiraz,

Persepolis) overthrew the former of these monarchs by a decisive

battle, in which Ardavan himself was slain (A.D. 227). The victor,

Ardashir, became master of the great Persian monarchy in which the

king of Armenia held the second place. His dynasty, the Sasanian,

supplanted the Arsakids in Persia, and continued to rule until the

middle of the seventh century, when it succumbed to the Arabs and to

Islam. The Sasanians are familiar to all of us as the permanent enemies

of the Roman Empire; and the traveller may be said to be on terms

of intimacy with them, for they have left him several monuments of

great solidity and architectural merit which mock the squalor of their

surroundings at the present day. These, it is true, they erected with

the aid of architects and artisans taken captive in their wars with

the Empire. [199] Fars was in those days a centre of Zoroastrianism

or Mazdaism; and Ardashir was the champion of the fire-worshippers,

leaned on their support and closely identified them with his dynasty.

When the news of the death of his kinsman and ally was brought

to the Arsakid king of Armenia, profound grief filled the soul of

Chosroes. For the moment he was powerless to arrest the triumph of

the usurper; but in the following year (A.D. 228) he had matured

extensive preparations, and, at the head of an army which comprised

Huns from beyond Caucasus as well as other nomads, marched to the

frontiers of Persia and laid waste her provinces to the gates of

Ctesiphon. Thirsting to avenge his race, he endeavoured to enlist the

Parthian satraps in the empire of Ardashir; but these temporising or

jealous princelets had thrown in their lot with the Sasanian monarch

and could not be induced to stir. He was, however, assisted by a

portion of the Medes and by the sons of Ardavan. [200]

For a period of ten years the war was continued by the Armenian

potentate; his capital, Vagharshapat, [201] was filled with the booty

of successful raids; and, while the temples of the gods throughout

Armenia were adorned with costly offerings, their priests received

munificent largesses. His fortunes were assisted by an alliance with

the Empire; the reigning Cæsar, Alexander Severus, was alarmed by

the rise of the new dynasty, and may have been stung by impertinent

messages on the part of Ardashir. A Roman army attacked Persia

from the side of Armenia, while two more divisions, one under the

leadership of the emperor, assailed other portions of the dominions

of the king of kings. [202] If the result of the various engagements

may appear ambiguous (231-233), it at least ensured the quiescence of

the Persian during several years. Ardashir continued to be harassed

by the Armenian ally of the Romans, and resolved to rid himself by any

means of his inveterate foe. A Parthian of the blood royal volunteered

to execute his desire; he went over with his family as a refugee to

the court of Chosroes, who received him with the greatest warmth as

a valuable ally. After much pleasant intercourse, when spring came

on and the king was preparing to take the field, Anak--for such was

his name--bethought himself of the pledge which he had given and of

the reward promised by Ardashir. In company with his own brother he

succeeded in drawing the king aside, when the two villains despatched

him with their swords. The crime was committed at Vagharshapat; the

guilty pair fled down the valley, hoping to cross the Araxes at the

bridge of Artaxata. But they were cut off by the Armenian horsemen

and precipitated into the river. The king, before he expired, gave

orders that the family of Anak should forthwith be massacred. Only

two little children were rescued from the carnage; one was brought

up in Persia, and the other, Gregory, in Greece (A.D. 238). [203]

This unnatural treachery on the part of a Parthian towards the Parthian

King of Armenia in the interests of a dynasty which had supplanted the

Parthians on the throne of Persia came near to costing the Armenians

the permanent loss of their independence. But Ardashir appears to have

contented himself with the enjoyment of his personal revenge and of

a few raids into Armenian territory. His death occurred a few years

after the date of the tragedy (in 241 or 242); and the government

of Armenia appears to have been conducted by the nobles, under the

nominal sovereignty of the son of Chosroes, by name Tiridates, a

child of tender years. It was not until the year 252 or 253 that the

successor of Ardashir was enabled to establish his sway over Armenia

with the assistance of the uncles of Tiridates, whose cruel treatment

compelled the youthful king to take refuge in the Empire. [204]

But the triumph of Shapur was not destined to be of long duration;

the young Tiridates grew up and prospered in the territory and under

the protection of the Romans; and, after distinguishing himself by

personal bravery in a campaign of the emperor against the Goths, was

restored to his native dominions with the support of a Roman army

and perhaps in consequence of the victory of Odaenathus, prince of

Palmyra, over the armies of the Persian king (264 or 265). [205] It

was in the first year of his restoration that occurred an event which

no Armenian can hear related without experiencing a thrill of emotion.

When the son of Anak, the murderer, who was being educated in Roman

territory, at Cæsarea, the capital of Cappadocia, had come to years

of discretion, he was informed--perhaps after his marriage and

the birth of two children--by the faithful guardian or governess

under whose care he had grown up, of the crime committed by his

father. Forthwith the pious youth--for he had been brought up in the

Christian faith--sallied forth in search of the son of the murdered

monarch, and attached himself to the person of the exiled Tiridates,

whom he commenced to serve with the utmost zeal. Upon the subject of

his origin and parentage Gregory maintained a wise silence; but he

was unable or unwilling to conceal his religion, which at that time

happened to be not only unpopular, but subject to persecution. [206]

Tiridates in vain endeavoured to wean his servant from the Christian

faith; time after time he assailed his constancy with reproach and

even with imprisonment; but the decisive moment arrived when he

had recovered his long-lost dominions, and stood within the famous

temple of Anahid, hard by the present town of Erzinjan. At the feast

which followed the sacrifice he gave vent to his emotion in words

characteristic of a king. Addressing his trusty counsellor among the

assembled guests, he commanded him to make an offering of garlands

and leafy branches to the shrine of the great goddess; and, upon his

refusal, "How dare you," exclaimed the king, "adore a God whom I do not

adore?" The resources of persuasion and torture were without effect

upon the will of the Christian; and the monarch was meditating some

fresh inducement when one of the nobles approached and said: "Sire,

this Gregory is not deserving of life, and hence his unwillingness to

live and see the light. We knew not who he was, this long while that

he has sojourned among us--but now we know: he is son of that Anak

who killed thy royal father, and to whom Armenia owed her exhaustion

and captivity." When Tiridates heard these words, he gave orders to

bind the martyr and to conduct him to the castle of Artaxata. There

he was cast into a pit of great depth, where he was left to perish.

For thirteen years Gregory languished in this noisome dungeon,

forgotten by the world but saved from death by the ministrations of a

widow who resided in the castle. The hatred or fear of the Christians,

so early manifest in the new reign, was emphasised by Tiridates

in a pompous edict, which admonished his subjects to beware of the

resentment of the gods--of Aramazd, who gave fertility; of Anahid,

the goddess defender; of Vahagn, the courageous god. The king had been

a witness--so it proceeded--during his sojourn in the Empire, of the

great solicitude of the Cæsars for the cult of the national divinities,

to the prosperity and glory of their people. Following the example

of his august instructors, he bade his subjects, nobles and peasants,

to lay hands on any offender against the gods. They should bind him,

hand and foot, and bring him to the gate of the palace. His lands

and possessions would be bestowed upon the denouncer. The religious

policy of a Decius and a Valerian was at least extended by Tiridates

to the holier sphere of legitimate homicide. At the head of the Roman

cavalry he rode down the Persian cohorts, and among his levies were

reckoned a contingent of Huns. Of lofty stature and broad shoulders,

his appearance was the signal of victory; and it became a proverb

that Tiridates would destroy the dams in his impatience, and in his

courage arrest the rivers in their course towards the sea.

At the point where the historian I have been following was perhaps

about to change his theme, and to present the opposite picture

of a king and people overtaken by calamities which could only be

attributed to the wrath of heaven, the priestly compiler of the

Agathangelus treatise has gone to work with his scissors, and has

substituted for the more straightforward account of the authority he

was using one of those prolix and portentous legends, familiar to the

student of hagiographical literature, which were at once the outcome

of the diseased fancy of the cloister and the food with which it was

sustained. The tale of the advent of the Roman virgins, of the assault

upon the modesty of the fairest among them, of their martyrdom and of

the transformation of the royal violator into a wild boar, wallowing in

mud and eating grass, bears the imprint at every phase of a monkish

invention, which was probably stolen in its essential features

from the literature of Greek monasteries and adapted to the local

conditions at Vagharshapat. [207] But carelessness or want of skill

on the part of the compiler has happily preserved for us a fragment

of the original story, from which we learn that the Armenians were

afflicted by an extraordinary outbreak of diverse diseases: leprosy,

palsy, dropsy, madness. [208] We are given to infer that the king

himself was visited by some grave malady, and that he was cured in

a miraculous manner upon the appearance and at the hands of Gregory,

who had long been numbered among the dead. [209] We are told how, from

all parts of Armenia, the people flocked to the province of Ararat, to

Vagharshapat, the royal residence; how they were cured of their various

disorders; and how king and people embraced the faith in the service

of which the saintly doctor had effected their cure. The testimony

of the historian is supported by a Greek writer of the fifth century,

who attributes the conversion of King Tiridates to a miracle. [210]

It is not unlikely that the mind of the monarch was influenced by some

occurrence of the nature deducible from the mangled narrative of the

original biographer. Tiridates was a full-blooded heathen, prone to

all forms of superstition, and free from any taint of rationalising

tendencies. Yet we may suspect that the number and power of the

Armenian Christians prior to his conversion loomed much larger in

the consciousness of himself and of his contemporaries than we are

led to suppose by Armenian histories. Was he desirous of finding a

counterpoise to the Mazdaism of his Persian enemy, which had been

elevated by the Sasanians into a strongly organised State religion

and identified with the throne? Was he impressed with the cohesion

of the Christians among themselves, and by the contrast thus offered

to the fissiparous tendencies of his feudal polity? Was the widow in

the castle of Artaxata a Christian, and was the old authority of the

prisoner in the king's counsels exploited by her co-religionists at

an opportune moment, when his wisdom should appear restored, as by a

miracle, to a necessitous land? If such questions be mere matters of

surmise, we at least know that at the date of the conversion the Roman

Empire was hesitating in a policy towards the Christians, and that the

repressive measures of a Valerian were no longer in repute. [211] The

Armenian king became a convert before their revival under Diocletian

(284-305); and Christianity was adopted as the religion of the State

in Armenia some thirty years prior to its triumph in the West by

the decisive action of the Milvian Bridge (312), and over a hundred

years before the edicts of Theodosius the First against the practice

of paganism. [212]

The measures taken by Tiridates and his statesman and mentor,

Gregory, to supplant polytheism by Christianity were such as might

have excited the envy of a Cæsar, and which only an Eastern despot

could hope to enforce. From Vagharshapat the king proceeded down

the valley to Artaxata at the head of the troops which garrisoned

the capital. On the way he set fire to the temple of the god Dir,

from whom he is said to have derived his name (Dirtad or gift of

Dir). [213] In a graphic figure our historian likens the priests and

their followers to demons; and he relates how, some on horseback,

others on foot, and all fully armed, they hurried hither and thither,

gesticulating and screaming, until they were put to flight. But the

swarm took refuge in the temple of Anahid at Artaxata, where from the

roof they discharged arrows and precipitated a hail of stones upon

the advancing host. Gregory, making the sign of the Cross, ran to the

gate of the edifice, which dissolved into its foundations, wreathed

in flames. The dusky troop vanished like a puff of smoke from the

face of the land, to Caucasus and Chaldia [214] in the north. The

treasures of the temple were distributed among the needy; some of

the priests were selected or accepted for the service of the Church,

to which body was also allotted the confiscated land.

King and minister travelled the country in all directions, preaching,

[215] overthrowing temples and endowing the Church with their rich

possessions. One after another the most famous sanctuaries succumbed

to the royal zeal: the fane of Aramazd, father of the gods, at Ani,

the modern Kemakh, the burial-place of the kings; that of Nanea,

daughter of Aramazd, at Til, beyond the Western Euphrates; the temple

of Mithra, son of Aramazd, at Pakharij in Terjan, and the temple

of Barshamin at Tortan. A more personal delight may have thrilled

the saint--if saints be capable of such emotions--as he shattered

the golden statue of the goddess Anahid at Erzinjan, and watched

the lofty walls of her numerous shrines sinking to the level of the

ground. They were the most magnificent of all the sacred edifices in

Armenia, and they were defended to the last by quite an army of dusky

foes. Within the vacant enclosures was erected the sign of the Cross.

Months and perhaps years were occupied in the overthrow of these

strongholds of paganism; [216] but it was not until after the return

of Gregory from ordination at Cæsarea of Cappadocia, whither he was

escorted by sixteen of the great nobles and conducted in a car drawn by

white mules, [217] that king and people received at the hands of the

minister, no longer a layman, the crowning benefit of baptism. The

first act of Gregory upon his return to his native country was to

destroy the temples of Astishat in the province of Taron (Mush),

which lay upon his road and which were still frequented. These were

three in number and dedicated to three gods. The first was the shrine

of Vahagn, destroyer of serpents; the second belonged to Anahid,

the golden mother; while the third preserved the cult of the goddess

Astghik, the Aphrodite of the fair mythology of Greece. They were

situated on the summit of Mount Karke, close to the Euphrates, and in

full view of the chain of the Taurus mountains. The place was called

Astishat because of the frequent sacrifices which were offered up;

and it was there that the kings of Armenia had been wont to appease

the gods. The saint was carrying with him certain relics obtained in

Roman territory, namely a parcel of the bones of St. John the Baptist

and of those of the holy martyr Athenogenes. [218] When his numerous

party had arrived in front of the temples, and were not further from

the Euphrates than a space which a horseman would cover in two careers

of his steed, the white mules of the car with the relics came to a

standstill in the hollow of a valley, where there was a little water

and which still remained to be crossed. Efforts were being made in

vain to induce them to proceed, when an angel appeared to Gregory and

signified the Divine Will. The relics should be deposited upon the

spot where they were stationed. Forthwith the entire company busied

themselves with the erection of a chapel, where in due course the

bones of the saints were laid to rest. The next care of pontiff and

princes was to demolish the temples of the idols which stood above

the valley. In their place Gregory laid the foundations of a church,

and erected an altar to the glory of God. [219] It was here that he

first commenced to build churches, and to erect altars in the name

of Christ. For twenty days he sojourned on the spot; and having

prepared fonts for baptism, baptized first the great princes who

had journeyed with him, and next the people to the number of over a

hundred and ninety thousand. In the chapel of St. John and Athenogenes

he dispensed the holy sacrament; and it was ordained that an annual

festival should be celebrated in that place in honour of the saints

and in commemoration of the first foundation of Christian churches

and ordination of Christian priests. From Astishat the Illuminator

journeyed to Bagaran in the province of Ararat; but it was at the

foot of Mount Nepat and on the banks of the river Euphrates that the

son of Anak administered to king and assembled army the regenerating

rite. A church was erected upon the site and endowed with a remnant

of the relics; and a festival was appointed in honour of the saints

in place of that of Amanor, at the season of first fruits. [220]

It would not be easy to find an account equally graphic and

circumstantial of the methods employed to substitute Christianity for

polytheism, which, although, no doubt, they were less violent and more

gradually operative in more civilised countries, were yet essentially

similar. We learn from the Armenian writer how the churches rose on

the sites of the temples, how the ancient festival in honour of the

god was converted into the festival of a martyr, and how, in fact,

while the myth was new and unfamiliar, much of the ritual and all the

surroundings remained the same. The sacred groves were taken by storm

amid scenes of carnage which our historian skilfully veils by the use

of metaphor. The lands and slaves of the heathen fanes were made over

to the Church; the number of the chapels exceeded that of the shrines

which had been demolished, and separate endowments were made to all by

royal decree. The children of the priests were distributed among the

newly founded seminaries, where they were instructed in the Greek and

Syriac languages and introduced to the literature of the Church. Their

loyalty to the new religion was stimulated by an annual salary; and the

most deserving among them were consecrated bishops. Such was the nature

of the revolution accomplished by St. Gregory with a thoroughness and

decision which we cannot but admire. The old cult was not extinguished,

but irremediably disabled; it lurked even in the highest places,

and we hear of a queen of Armenia who encouraged the polytheists to

assassinate Verthanes, the son and successor of St. Gregory. [221] Many

Armenians practised Christianity as a mere matter of form, regarding

it as an aberration of the human intelligence to which they had been

compelled to subscribe. [222] Those who had embraced the faith with

conviction were limited to the circles which spoke Greek or Syriac,

or were at least fairly familiar with those idioms. [223] Yet Gregory

preached to the Armenians in the Armenian language. [224] Under the

shadow of night the devotees of the old religion would adore their

divinities and chant the tempestuous epics of their native land. [225]

Years elapsed before they would abandon their lamentations for the

dead, a practice specially repugnant to the Christian spirit. [226]

Still, in spite of the constant undercurrent and frequent ebullitions

of paganism, the institutions of the Illuminator were never

jeopardised by a decisive relapse. The religion which he invested

with all the authority of the State became inextricably interwoven

with the self-consciousness of the Armenian nation, and derived from

their inveterate obstinacy or admirable heroism a stability which

hardened the more it was threatened from without.

Then, as now, the keystone of the ecclesiastical edifice was the person

of the katholikos. I do not know that we can instance among Christian

organisations any counterpart of this high office. Beside it that of

the king seems mere fable and tinsel. The title itself was unimportant

and unpretentious, designating as it did among the Christians of the

East an archbishop with plenary powers (ad universalitatem causarum),

such as were necessary in countries removed by distance from the

hierarchical centres. It is applied by our earliest extant authority

to St. Gregory; [227] and, so moderate are the claims or pronounced

the hierarchical spirit of his successor, Faustus, that he coins

the cumbrous superlative, katholikos of katholikoi, to express the

superior dignity of the metropolitan of Cæsarea. [228] But, whatever

grade in the army of the Church may have been assigned to him by his

clerical colleagues, the position occupied in his native country by

the katholikos of Armenia was one of extraordinary glamour. The office

was hereditary in the family of the Illuminator; and that family had

been endowed with territories extending over fifteen provinces and

comprising several princely residences. [229] The pontifical palace was

at Astishat, in the neighbourhood of the mother-church of Armenia and

the chapels of St. John the Baptist and of St. Athenogenes. From the

spacious terrace expanded a landscape which aroused the envy of the

richest laymen and which was only commensurate with a fraction of the

pontifical possessions. When the scions of the family were unwilling

to sustain the burden of the office it was entrusted to prominent

clerics of the church at Astishat, while the unworthy heirs pursued

the vocation of arms or the attractions of pleasure, surrounded by a

court which polluted the sanctity of the pontifical residence. [230]

It was customary for the descendants of Gregory to marry into the

king's family, and they were accorded many of the honours due to

royalty alone. As often as the king aroused and probably deserved the

censure of the katholikos, that spiritual castigation was unflinchingly

enforced. In a vacancy of the Chair, owing to failure in the line

or renunciation on the part of the heirs, it was not the priesthood

who chose the successor but the king, the nobles and the army. [231]

In these several respects the office was identified with the existing

institutions of the country, and it was perhaps indeed modelled upon

that of the high priest among the polytheists and the Jews. [232]

But, however great was the prestige derived from such a splendid

establishment and from the fame of the first occupant of the Chair, the

hold of the pontificate upon the imagination of later generations was

derived from a less antique and more constantly operative source. Two

descendants of the Illuminator, one in the fourth, the other in the

fifth century, added new and peculiar lustre to the institution. Nerses

the First introduced the refinements of hierarchical government; Sahak

the Great gave to the people an alphabet of their own. The throne

of the successors of Tiridates crumbled away in the course of about

a century from the death of the first Christian monarch; that of the

successors of St. Gregory has weathered the storms of sixteen centuries

and remains a solid and impressive monument at the present day.

Two events of high importance remain to be mentioned in this brief

survey of the momentous revolution carried through by the great

king and his great minister. The first is the journey to Europe. The

reciprocal advantage of the ancient alliance between Tiridates and

the Empire had been experienced in the campaigns which were waged by

the Cæsar Galerius against the Persians (A.D. 296 and 297); and the

memory of comradeship in arms may have preserved the first Christian

State from incurring the active displeasure of the colleague of

Diocletian during the subsequent onslaughts upon the Christian religion

(303-311). But the Cæsar Maximin was less patient or more oblivious,

and their new faith cost the Armenians a war (312). [233] The advent

of Constantine averted their ruin and set the seal of political wisdom

upon the spiritual policy of their monarch; and it was only natural

that the two exalted instruments of the Christian profession should

desire to profit in every sense by the Christian sympathies of so

great a prince. The journey of Gregory and Tiridates to the court of

Constantine has been regarded as unauthentic by a competent authority;

yet it probably took place. The meeting perhaps occurred in Serdica, a

residence of the emperor in Illyria, and it was attended by the friend

and relation of Constantine, Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. The highest

honours were paid to the aged visitors, and the emperor prostrated

himself at the feet of the saint. The pair were escorted with much

pomp to their native country, having still further strengthened the

link which attached them to their powerful neighbours, and perhaps

concluded a formal treaty. [234]

The second event reposes upon less questionable evidence; it is the

participation of the Armenian Church in the deliberations of the

Council of Nice (325), and her formal subscription of its acts. The

great age of Gregory may well have deterred him from personal

attendance; his younger son Aristakes represented the Armenians in

the famous assembly. Upon his return he communicated the canons to

his father, who accepted them and contributed a few additions. The

formula of Nice with its uncompromising identification of Christ with

God was adopted as the dogmatic base of the State religion. [235]

III. A general impression which one receives from the perusal of the

early histories is that the Armenians of the fourth century were not

far removed from barbarism. The king might here and there set up a copy

of a classical building; but I should doubt whether he could have left

us any monument which might approach the originality of the creations

of the Bagratid sovereigns in the Middle Ages. Very few among his

subjects had a knowledge of Greek and Syriac, still less of Latin,

the languages of the literature of their day. The Scriptures--that

mine of knowledge--were read in the Syriac or Greek versions to

congregations of which not even the most intelligent members could

profit by the service. [236] Identity of interests with the Empire on

the score of culture was a bond which, I suppose, scarcely existed

in that age; and, alas, when at length it became a reality, how

fragile it proved--how fragile such bonds have always proved! Still,

although we must be careful in thinking of the Armenians of the

fourth century as we might think of their descendants in the tenth,

the ties which should have united them to their powerful neighbours

on the west were of a nature which could appeal to all. There was

the tie of a common religion, which either nation had recently

adopted and subscribed at a joint conference. Both were threatened

by a common enemy--the fire-worshippers of Persia, enlisting all the

resources of the further East. From that Persian dynasty the Armenian

monarchs were separated by difference of origin and by a blood feud,

unmitigated by the lapse of time. They had been restored to their

possessions by the Roman power. A great king and a great statesman,

in whom they recognised a saint, had crowned their life work by the

conclusion of an alliance with Rome which in no previous age could

have reposed upon so stable a base. Shall we therefore be edified

by the spectacle of their successors following in their footsteps,

patiently waiving differences, insisting upon elements of union,

ranging themselves upon the side of Christianity and civilisation

and fighting their battles in such sacred causes as these?

King Tiridates was followed on the throne by his son Chosroes the

Little, to whom is ascribed a reign of nine years. [237] If perhaps

his stature was small and his body feeble, he at least possessed the

merit of keeping well with the successor of Gregory, whom his queen

in vain endeavoured to remove from the world. His name is therefore

in favour with the priestly historian, who indeed narrates the events

of this period in a somewhat fabulous manner, but presents us with

a picture of contemporary society which is lifelike and full of

movement and colour. [238] That the early years of the reign were

not disturbed by a war with Persia was perhaps due to the youth of

the Persian monarch; but the storm burst before its close. After

sustaining with success the brunt of a Hunnish invasion--in which,

however, the capital, Vagharshapat, was temporarily lost--Chosroes

was called to the defence of his eastern frontiers by the approach

of a Persian army. The first encounter took place near the shores of

Lake Van, and resulted in a victory for the Armenians. The assistance

of imperial troops [239] may have nerved the king's resistance, which

continued until the close of his life. With Chosroes is contemporary

the pontificate of Verthanes, the eldest son of the Illuminator. That

saintly personage did not long survive the successor of Tiridates;

but he may have lived to confirm the reign of his son Tiran, and he

was perhaps instrumental in placing him upon the throne. [240]

It is during the rule of Tiran that we observe for the first time

manifestations of that bitter rivalry between the head of the Church

and the head of the State which was destined, as much, perhaps, as

any other cause, to bring about the downfall of the dynasty. Such

an outcome of the ecclesiastical institutions of the first Christian

monarch might indeed have been foreseen. Had Armenia not been exposed

to a struggle for life and death with enemies from without, her

statesmen might well have solved the problem of this dangerous dualism

without endangering the safety of the nation. Enveloped as they were

in such a struggle, the only policy was to postpone the issue; King

Tiran chose the opposite course. He had given his daughter in marriage

to the son of Verthanes, Yusik; but after the experience of a single

night the youth deserted his bride, in apprehension, it is said, of

the terrible progeny which she was destined to give to the world. Such

conduct and such explanations could scarcely have satisfied her royal

parents; but the princess died after giving birth to twin sons. Upon

the death of Verthanes, Yusik was placed in the pontifical chair,

the ceremony of his installation being performed at Artaxata. The

king was a lukewarm Christian and, perhaps, an inveterate sinner;

the katholikos was at once pious and severe. A long feud and partial

estrangements resulted in an open rupture; and, when the sovereign

on a certain feast day was about to attend divine service, he was

publicly denounced by the enraged prelate and forbidden to enter the

church. Yusik was beaten to death under royal orders; and a similar

fate befell the saintly bishop of Astishat, who, although a Syrian

and not a member of the family of St. Gregory, was summoned by king

and nobles to fill the vacancy in the Chair. We are told that King

Tiran lived on friendly terms with Persia; however this may be,

he contrived to fall into the hands of these powerful neighbours,

who put out his eyes and led him to the feet of their master.

A deputation of the great barons was forthwith despatched to

Constantinople in order to obtain succour from the emperor. Before

their return a Persian army was let loose upon Armenia, and those of

the inhabitants of every rank who were able to make good their escape

took refuge upon Greek territory. The arrival of imperial troops--it

is said with the emperor at their head--was shortly followed by a

decisive victory and the capture of the harem of the Persian king. That

potentate was summoned to restore Tiran to his native country; but,

upon the refusal of his blind prisoner to undertake the office, the

son of Tiran, Arshak, was placed upon the throne. Two occurrences

in the reign of this prince, as it is described by Faustus, may

be identified with known events. The one is his connection with

the great massacre of Christians in Persia which took place during

the reign of Shapur. [241] Our historian attributes the wrath of the

Persian monarch to the monstrous perfidy of the Christian sovereign of

Armenia. The other is the conclusion of a treaty between the Roman and

Persian empires, of which a provision was the engagement on the part

of the former power not to offer any assistance to Arshak. These terms

are familiar to us from other sources as having been wrung from the

commander of the luckless Roman army after the death of Julian. [242]

The reign of Arshak is, indeed, contemporary with the great wars

which were waged by Shapur with the power which disputed his supremacy

over the East. However little credit we may attach to the narrative

of the Armenian historian, it is at least plain that a king who owed

his throne to the Cæsars was often their enemy and never their loyal

ally. We are told, indeed, that on one occasion his armies violated

the Roman territory and advanced as far as Angora; on another that

the king himself led his troops against those of the Empire, and fell

upon them as they were preparing to receive a Persian attack. When

the duel was being waged most fiercely he maintained an attitude of

expectant neutrality, waiting to see which of the antagonists would

offer him the best terms. The only palliation which we may discover

for such a course of outrageous conduct is derived from the obscure

notice of a religious persecution, directed against the Armenian

pontiff, Nerses, by one of the successors of Constantine. Yet that

prelate with true wisdom enjoined resistance to the Persians at a

moment when it might well have seemed a desperate course. The king,

left to his fate by the provision in the Roman treaty, maintained

for awhile a courageous front to the Persian onslaught. But he was

at length compelled to sue for peace and to place his person in the

power of his enemy under a guarantee of security. His former treachery

was requited, as it deserved, by the same treatment; and, while he

himself was taken to Persia and consigned to the castle of oblivion,

his queen, after a brief resistance, was brought to the presence of

Shapur and outraged before the eyes of his army until she expired.

A series of massacres on a large scale and organised by Shapur in

person was the sequel of these events. The unfortunate Armenians

were collected into large bodies and trampled down under the feet

of elephants. The number of the victims is said to have amounted

to thousands and tens of thousands of either sex and every age. The

great cities, including Artaxata and Vagharshapat, were ruthlessly

destroyed. Whole populations, among which were conspicuous the numerous

Jewish colonies, were driven off into captivity. From this calamity,

which must have occurred after the year 363 and before 379, the

Arsakid dynasty does not appear to have recovered. The son of Arshak,

by name Pap, was indeed placed upon the throne by the emperor, and

reigned for several years. But, like his father, he turned his arms

against his protectors the moment they had cleared his frontiers of

the inveterate foe. Like his father he coquetted with the Persian

power, forgetting the unspeakable insults to which his family had

been subjected. He even possessed the effrontery to despatch to the

emperor an insulting message, summoning him to restore Edessa and

Cæsarea and ten other cities which he averred had belonged to his

ancestors. Pap was put to death by imperial order, and another member

of the Arsakid family sent to reign in his place. But that prince was

expelled by the most valiant of the Armenian chieftains, who proceeded

to administer the country in the interests of the sons of Pap. When

these had come of age the royal authority was divided between them,

while the numerous Persian party among the Armenians selected a rival

Arsakid and enlisted in his favour Persian support. Armenian politics

were becoming a farce when the rulers of the two great powers arrived

at a solution to which both had been provoked. The buffer state was

divided between them, the Persians taking the greater portion, and

the smaller, including the valley of the Western Euphrates, falling

to the Roman Empire (A.D. 387). Phantom kings of Arsakid descent were

set up by either power, until in the course of time Persian governors

and Greek prefects administered the government in either sphere.

I have anticipated in this brief summary upon the sequel of the

ecclesiastical policy pursued by King Tiran. After the murder of

the bishop of Taron, whose diocese included Astishat, a priest of

the church in this religious centre was elevated to the pontifical

dignity and duly consecrated at Cæsarea. He was succeeded by a

scion of the House of Albianus--a House of which the founder is

mentioned first in the list of bishops chosen by St. Gregory from

the ranks of the children of the heathen priests. [243] Meanwhile

the sons of Yusik--the terrible progeny given to the world by his

bride of a single night--had reached an age which permitted the full

indulgence of their wicked appetites in every kind of vice. They are

said to have met their death in the pontifical palace, where their

wassail was cut short by the angel of God. One of the twins, by name

Athenogenes, had already produced an heir; and it was this child who,

when he had reached the estate of manhood, was acclaimed katholikos

by army and nation during the reign of King Arshak. Nerses--such

was his name--had been brought up at Cæsarea, the native city of his

contemporary, St. Basil the Great. After an early marriage he adopted

the military profession and became chamberlain and counsellor to his

king. He is delineated as the ideal of a perfect cavalier--tall and

supple of figure, with a face of great beauty, which enlisted the

sympathy of both sexes and all classes. Yet the youth wore the flower

of a blameless private life; and his high capacities were from the

first bestowed upon the intimate care of the poor or afflicted, and

the protection of the oppressed. His function at court was to stand

behind the person of the king, attired in a rich and elegant robe,

and bearing in his hand the royal sword of tried steel with its golden

scabbard and belt inlaid with precious stones. Such was the station

which he was fulfilling when the nobles and assembled troops approached

the steps of the throne. They had come to demand his acceptance of the

high office, hereditary in his family; but the embarrassed chamberlain

waved them aside. His profession of personal unworthiness was received

with laughter; his indignant protests by the clash of shields. Upon

his persistence King Arshak gave orders that he should be bound

in his presence, and shorn of his long and abundant hair. Many of

the bystanders shed tears when the ruthless scissors severed those

silky and floating locks. Stripped of his gay apparel, he was made

to assume the garb of a priest; and it was difficult to recognise in

the face of the deacon, who was being ordained by a venerable bishop,

the brave soldier and princely courtier of a few minutes ago. [244]

The national character of the Armenian Church is mainly derived from

the institutions of St. Gregory; but it was this Nerses, his direct

descendant, who brought it into line with the Church of the Empire in

the important sphere of internal development and discipline. The family

likeness which it still presents to the neighbouring Greek Church is

largely due to this prelate. The monastery is still the pivot of the

ecclesiastical organisation; and it was this contemporary, perhaps this

disciple of St. Basil of Cæsarea, who spread broadcast cloisters and

convents over the land. A single rule was established for the several

orders of monks; and the laity were bidden to observe certain wholesome

regulations, among which was included abstention from animal food. The

poor and the sick were lodged in hospices, and were not allowed to beg;

a humane enactment provided that their neighbours should bring them

food to their public or private dwellings. In each district was founded

a school for the instruction of the people in the Greek and Syriac

languages. Every action of the great katholikos bears the imprint

of a high purpose, and overwelling zeal. That purpose was to conquer

the lusts of a full-blooded and intemperate people by subduing their

unruly bodies and fanning into life the spark of the soul. But just

in the execution of this lofty project he was brought into conflict

with the king, and the fate of his grandfather stared him in the

face. The son of Tiran was indeed the son of that obstinate sinner,

nor was Nerses less inflexible than Yusik. Perhaps the monarch acted

with design, and wished to divide his people into separate communities

of the black and the white sheep. The saints might be handed over to

the sway of their prince-prelate; over the sinners his own prerogative

would remain supreme. He proclaimed an edict which enacted that every

debtor or accused person, those who had shed the blood or taken the

property of their neighbours, should assemble in an appointed place,

where no law would be allowed to touch them and each man might lead

his life after his own guise. [245] To that haven beyond their dreams

flocked the company of the unrighteous--women with the husbands

of other women, and men with the wives of other men. The brigands

and the assassins and the unjust judges and the perjured witnesses,

all collected at the given tryst. The place was at first a village;

but it soon prospered, and became a town, which again extended until

it filled an entire valley. Then the king built a palace in the

midst of his congenial subjects and called the city by his own name

(Arshakavan). Upon the return of the katholikos--he is said to have

been exiled by a Roman emperor; but his vicar during his absence had

not betrayed his trust--this truly original and royal solution of the

problem of joint government was vigorously arraigned. The pontiff taxed

the monarch with having founded a second Sodom; but, relenting to a

mood of greater amiability, he suggested that the sovereign might

continue to reside in his city if he would entrust its management

into the hands of the katholikos. The rejection of this kind proposal

was shortly followed by the outbreak of a malady, which decimated

the inhabitants. The king was constrained to sue for pardon from the

saint and to disband his colony. The quarrel broke out anew when the

inveterate profligate shed the blood of a subject and espoused his

beautiful wife. Nerses left the court and did not return. Arshak, in

open defiance, appointed a katholikos in his stead--a certain Chunak,

who was nothing better than one of his minions. He could not hope

that his action might be endorsed at Cæsarea; so he summoned all

the bishops of his own country and bade them consecrate the object

of his choice. Only two could be persuaded to perform the ceremony;

and these were perhaps pensioners of the king. [246]

The full activity of the lawful pontiff was not resumed until after

the calamity which resulted in the bondage of his old enemy and

the seclusion of Arshak in the castle of oblivion. The accession of

Pap was attended by the presentation of a solemn petition, in which

sovereign and nation craved the assistance of their true pastor. Nerses

devoted his energies to the restoration of the churches which had been

destroyed by Shapur. But the son of Arshak was quite as licentious,

although less capable than his father; and he is said to have added to

the sum of the delinquencies of his predecessor the habitual practice

of unspeakable vice. The monster was forbidden entry even into the

porch of the church; and he retaliated by poisoning the katholikos with

a cup of peace which, in token of repentance, he tendered with his own

hand. The death of Nerses, which occurred not later than the year 374,

[247] marks an epoch in the history of the Church.

On the one hand its emoluments were considerably curtailed; on the

other--and this is a fact with the most far-reaching consequences--it

was dissevered for good and all from the Church of the Empire. It

is quite evident that Nerses failed to gauge correctly the temper

of his countrymen; and it was the defect of his undoubted virtues

that he at once endeavoured to go too far and to accomplish too

much. The reaction from his severe ordinances enabled the king to

proceed unhindered in the work of overthrowing the structure which

his victim had reared. The hospices were abolished, the convents were

destroyed and their inmates given over to prostitution. Moreover the

greater portion of the lands bestowed upon the Church by Tiridates

were appropriated by the State. Of each seven domains belonging to

the former institution the revenues of five were allotted to the

Treasury. Nor can we doubt that popular support was forthcoming for

the revolution which the monarch initiated in the relations with the

Greek Church. The Armenians have at all periods approved a national

policy, and preferred to perish than unite with their neighbours. A

bishop of the House of Albianus, always obsequious to the throne,

was invested with the vacant primacy. The consent of Cæsarea was not

even applied for, nor was the bishop despatched to the capital of the

province of Cappadocia for consecration in accordance with the usual

custom. With the possible exception of the two sons of St. Gregory

and, of course, of the pseudo-katholikos, Chunak, each successive

holder of the pontifical office, including the Illuminator, had been

in the habit of proceeding with great pomp through the territory of

the Empire to the steps of the episcopal throne in the Greek city. It

was there that the chosen of the Armenians bowed his head before

a prelate who loomed in the eyes of his countrymen as the living

embodiment of the authority of the Church of Christ. The defiance

offered him by the king was accepted by Basil in a similar spirit. He

called together all the members of the provincial synod of Cæsarea,

without inviting the nominee of King Pap. A violent despatch was

addressed to the Armenian bishops and a similar one to the king. The

right of consecrating bishops was taken away from the katholikos, and

he was left the single prerogative of blessing bread at the court of

the king. The result of this hot temper upon either side was a bitter

conflict in the Armenian Church itself. The clergy were divided into

followers of the king and the House of Albianus, and those who held to

the necessity of consecration in Cæsarea and to allegiance to the House

of Gregory. [248] The subsequent lapse of the greater part of Armenia

under Persian influence promoted the policy initiated by Pap; and when,

towards the close of the century, the chair was again occupied by a

descendant of St. Gregory, the link with Cæsarea was not restored.

There can, I think, be no doubt that the story of the foundation of

the Armenian Church by a direct mandate of Christ Himself was invented

not earlier than the period at which we have now arrived. The mandate

is said to have taken the form of an injunction to St. Gregory to

build the church of Vagharshapat. Neither the author of the Life of

the Illuminator, as we can trace that source through the Agathangelus

treatise, nor the historian who continues his narrative, displays any

cognisance with such a momentous event. The former tells us that it

was at Astishat in the south of Armenia, the country of the Murad,

that Gregory built the first Christian church. The cult of martyrs

which he first introduced was not the cult of the Ripsimians but that

of St. John the Baptist and Athenogenes. We learn from the latter

that after the death of the saint, and at least down to the murder of

Nerses, the mother-church of Armenia was situated at Astishat and not

at Edgmiatsin. Faustus, indeed, expresses himself not once alone or

in a doubtful manner upon this important point. Astishat contains the

"first and great mother of Armenian churches," "the first and greatest

of all the churches of Armenia, the principal and most honoured seat

of the Christian religion." It was at Astishat that was situated

the palace of the katholikos. The great synod which was convoked by

Nerses of all Armenian bishops was held at Astishat. When that prelate

wished to chide the chief of the king's eunuchs for casting covetous

glances upon the wide domains which surrounded the church, he quoted

the scriptural injunction against such ignoble conduct, and added that

such was the will of Jesus Christ, "Whose choice had first fallen upon

the church at Astishat for the glorification of His Name." [249] On

the other hand, I cannot help detecting in these passages indications

that their author was aware of the growing rivalry of the church at

Edgmiatsin. Faustus wrote after the severance from Cæsarea and after

the partition of Armenia (A.D. 387). He displays acquaintance with the

Ripsimian legend. But there is no trace in his pages of a knowledge of

the vision of St. Gregory upon which Edgmiatsin has founded her claim.

As time went on, several causes, which perhaps we may distinguish,

contributed to widen further the breach with the Church of the

Empire. The Persian occupation and the ultimate removal of the Arsakid

dynasty, whose hereditary blood feud with the House of Sasan had

long embittered the antagonism of the peoples, were no small factors

in an estrangement from Greek influences which the policy of Persia

lost no occasion of promoting. The invention by Mesrop of an Armenian

alphabet, [250] and the institution of a school of translators during

the pontificate of the son of Nerses, Isaac the Great (c. 390-439),

constitute elements which, while they worked for the attachment

of the Armenians to Greek culture and for the wider propagation of

Christianity, were yet calculated to foster the strong proclivities

of this people towards complete religious independence. Lastly--if

indeed there be an end to such a catalogue, in which each item is as

much an effect as a cause--the peculiar genius of the Armenian nation

imprinted a stamp upon the dogma of their Church which was not the

stamp sanctioned by that of the Empire.

The Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) addressed itself to the solution of

the problems which were the natural outcome of the dogma adopted at the

Council of Nice. What was the true view of the mystery expressed by the

words of the formula: Son of God, of one nature with the Father, Who

came down from heaven and took flesh and became man? How explain the

character of the union of God with man in the person of Christ? Over

the answer which should be returned to this question conflicts arose

which destroyed thousands of innocent people, and which prepared the

way for the disappearance of the Roman Empire from the map of Asia,

and for the triumph of Islam. The compromise adopted at Chalcedon

is difficult to place in a short sentence; but perhaps no essential

feature is omitted in the following phrase: Christ according to His

Godhead is of one nature with the Father, according to His humanity is,

apart from sin, of one nature with us. This one and the same Christ is

recognised in two natures indissolubly united but yet distinct. The

Armenians were not represented at this Council; [251] and, indeed,

it is contemporary with the fierce religious persecutions directed

against them by Yezdegerd II. But, when once the unfortunate nation,

or what remained after the orgy of the fire-worshippers, had settled

down to a more peaceful routine, they proceeded to hold a synod of

their own, which assembled at Vagharshapat (A.D. 491), and which

with all solemnity cursed the Council of Chalcedon. This procedure

was repeated at several subsequent synods; nor has the bitterness

which was consequent upon this open breach with the Church of the

West subsided at the present day. At Edgmiatsin, the seat of this

synod, held fourteen centuries ago, I was informed that the Armenian

Church expressly rejects Chalcedon; and the emphasis of language was

underlined by the tone of the voice. The Armenians therefore differ

both with the Greek and with the Roman Church in their expression of

the mystery of Christology. They will not hear of two natures. They

hold that in Christ there is one person and one nature, one will and

one energy; and their liturgy presents this dogma in an impressive

manner in the Trisagion, which runs: "O God, holy God, mighty God,

everlasting God, who wast crucified for us." [252] At the same time

they deny and denounce the teaching of Eutyches, protagonist against

the Nestorians. Eutyches held that the body of Christ is not to be

regarded as of one nature with ours; the Armenians maintain that God

became man in the fullest sense. [253]

One might argue this question to all eternity; but one feels that the

Greeks were the subtler disputants. The Armenians, like the Persian

Mohammedans, would appear to be averse to abstractions; they go,

perhaps, to extremes in the concreteness of their conception of God--a

God-man in the crudest sense. This Christology has probably embodied

the sentiments of the people; but it had the effect of estranging

them not only with the Church of the Empire, but also with the great

body of their fellow-Christians of different nationality within the

Persian dominions. At the synod of Beth Lapat (A.D. 483 or 484) the

old Christian Church of Persia welcomed into its bosom the flying

forces of Nestorianism, and adopted the Nestorian confession. The

Georgians, it is true, followed the lead of the Armenians, with whom

their Church was directly connected. But these allies broke away

before the close of the sixth century, and went over to the teaching

of Chalcedon. As the centuries rolled by, these various breaches

became wider, and they are still marked features in the Christianity

of the East. Martyrdom and political slavery were alternatives which

were gladly accepted rather than compromise dogmatic and doctrinal

differences. When Heraclius visited Armenia after replacing the Cross

in the churches of Jerusalem, the Armenians refused to camp with his

troops. In the Middle Ages, when the Sasanians were already forgotten,

when the caliphs, their successors, were approaching their doom, the

stubborn hierarchy insisted upon baptizing babes a second time if the

ceremony had been performed by a Greek priest. All attempts to effect a

union--and they have been many and serious--have invariably failed. The

more attractive the offers of the Greeks, the greater grew the hatred

of them; nor have the popes met with better success. They have added

costly objects to the treasury at Edgmiatsin; the result remains a

blank. When we reflect that this obstinate people are as intelligent

as any in the world in the various pursuits of civilised life, our

anger at such conduct, which gave away the cause of civilisation, may

be tempered by a different feeling. The Armenians have fought at all

hazards to preserve their individuality, and the bulk of the nation

have perished in the attempt. The remnant may be destined, like the

son of Anak, to redress the wrongs inflicted by their ancestors upon

the common Christian weal. On the other hand, the lesson which is

taught by history is that no nation and no Christianity will succeed

with the Armenians which endeavours to deflect them from their own

opinions and to preclude them from working out their own salvation

in their own way. [254]