HE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

[ER HISTORY, DOCTRINE, RULE, DISCIPLINE, LITURGY LITERATURE. AND EXISTING CONDITION

By MALAGHIA ORMANIAN

TRANSLATED BY

G. MARGAR GREGORY, V.D.

LIBRARY

TORONTO

Shelf No. Register No. \

"

THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

HER HISTORY, DO« I RINE, RULE, DISCIPLINE LITURGY, LITERATUhl AND EXISTING CONDITION

MALACHIA ORMANIAN

RANSJ / Ti«'U rw-'.'M TriK FRENCH fci.'J t'n "> ITH Tin. At THOK'S PF;RMl-SftlON HY

0. MARCAR GREGORY, V.D.

HtVKHVH SKKVICE. BENGAL, INDIA (RttTIKKD) LUVT.-COLOtnSL, INDIAN VOLUNTEKK FORCE

WITH AN INTRODUCTION

BY THE

RIGHT REV. J. E. C. WELLDON, D.D.

A. R. MOWBRAY & CO., LTD.

LONDON: 28 Margaret Street, Oxford Circus, W.

OXFORD: 9 High Street

THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

HER HISTORY, DOCTRINE, RULE, DISCIPLINE LITURGY, LITERATURE, AND EXISTING CONDITION

BY

MALACHIA ORMANIAN

FORMERLY ARMENIAN PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE

TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH EDITION WITH THE AUTHOR'S PERMISSION BY

G. MARCAR GREGORY, V.D.

REVENUE SERVICE, BENGAL, INDIA (RETIRED) LIEUT.-COLONEL, INDIAN VOLUNTEER FORCE

WITH AN INTRODUCTION

BY THE

RIGHT REV. J. E. C. WELLDON, D.D.

A. R. MOWBRAY & CO., LTD.

LONDON: 28 Margaret Street, Oxford Circus, W.

OXFORD: 9 High Street

INTRODUCTION

BY BISHOP WELLDON

THE task of writing an Introduction to Mr. Gregory's translation of Mgr. Ormanian's book upon the Church of Armenia is not free from difficulty ; nor is it made the less difficult because the Bishop who should have written it, had his life been spared, was a man of such wide and various learning as the late Bishop of Salisbury, Dr. Wordsworth. Yet in that Church there is much that is interesting to all Christians, and perhaps especially to members of the Church of England. For the history of the Church of Armenia is a witness to certain great principles of ecclesiastical life. It is a protest against the assumed infallibility and universality of the Church of Rome. For the Church of Armenia believes that " no Church, however great in herself, represents the whole of Christendom ; that each one, taken singly, can be mistaken, and to the Universal Church alone belongs the privilege of infallibility in her dogmatic decisions." * She takes her stand then upon the national character and prerogative of Churches. She holds, as the Church of England holds, that it is a fraternity of Churches tracing their pedigree backwards to an Apostolical origin, developing themselves on separate lines, yet knit together by a common creed and by spiritual union with the same

* Preface to the French Edition, p. xix. v

vi INTRODUCTION

Divine Head, which constitutes the true ideal of the Universal Church.

Ift The Church of Armenia claims descent from the Apostles St. Bartholomew and St. Thaddaeus. Whether it is or is not true that " Armenia was the first state in the world to proclaim Chris tianity as its official religion," * there is no doubt that Armenia as a whole was converted to Christianity at the very beginning of the fourth century A.D. by the preaching of St. Grigor Partev (Gregory the Parthian), better known as St. Gregory the Illuminator. He became the first Catholicos of Armenia. He ruled and or ganised the Armenian Church, and it is curious to notice that he died in the year of the Council offNicaea, A.D. 325.

From St. Gregory's day to the present the Church of Armenia has pursued an independent course. In her early history she resisted the controlling influence of the Churches of Caesarea, of Antioch, of Constantinople. In later times she has been subject to aggressions from the Greek, the Syrian, and the Latin Churches, and in some degree from missionaries of the various Protestant denominations. But although indivi dual secessions from her communion have taken place, she has never compromised her separate national life. To quote Mgr. Ormanian, she has " always understood the meaning of union in the true and strict sense of the term. She has desired to see its establishment on the basis of a spiritual communion between the Churches, of mutual respect for their several positions, of liberty for each within the limits of her own sphere, and of the spirit of Christian charity overruling all." f

One special merit of the book now recom mended to English readers is that it is an appre- * p. 10. t P- 58.

INTRODUCTION vii

ciation of the Church of Armenia not from without, but from within. The author, as having himself been the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, is entitled to put forward the case of his own Church. It is thus that he claims a hearing for his repudiation of the Eutychian heresy so fre quently associated with the Church of Armenia. It is thus too that he dwells with authority upon the unfailing tolerance characteristic of that Church in all the ages.

Not only is the Church of Armenia a standing instance of a Church developing on her own historical lines, but her independence is exemplified in numerous aspects of her past and present history. It will be enough to instance her recognition of three, and three only, Oecumenical Councils, the small number of the dogmas upon which she insists as necessary to salvation, her estimate and use of the sacraments, her hierarchical system, the strong influence of her laity in de liberation and administration, the dependence of her clergy upon voluntary offerings, her so- called dominical festivals, her special hagiology, and the democratical spirit which has endeared her to the nation.

It is probable that no other book gives so clear an account of the Church of Armenia in so brief a space as that of Mgr. Ormanian. If I do not mistake it, it will create in the minds of Anglican Churchmen not only a keen sym pathy with the Church of Armenia, but a stronger confidence than ever in the strength of their own ecclesiastical position as accordant with the spirit and practice of the Christian Churches which are not merged in the Church of Rome, and as justified not only by ecclesiastical history, but by the Spirit and Will of Jesus Christ Himself.

J. E. C. WELLDON.

March i6th, 1912.

PREFACE

THE intention of Mgr. Ormanian in writing his work in French was to place before the Western public an authentic account of a Church regarding which much ignorance and misrepresentation prevail ; and it is a special privilege in being accorded his permission to join in the attempt to dispel such ignorance and misrepresentation by placing this translation before English readers interested in ecclesiastical history.

It is not uncommon in this country for the term " Armenian " to be connected in some way with massacres, which, with periodic re currence for centuries, have played havoc with the nation's fatherland and Church. On the other hand, the innermost history of Armenia and her Church has been practically a sealed book, except for such glimpses which have been vouchsafed by a few foreign writers and com pilers, whose statements have frequently to be taken with caution.

An ancient nation, which has seen empires around it rise and disappear, which has been through the fires of persecution as few nations have, and which, in spite of every possible drawback, political and religious, still upholds its Church as the emblem of its nationhood — such a nation cannot but be possessed of an inborn independence of character which, under favourable surroundings, is the best augury for human activity and progress. This essentially

x PREFACE

democratic race of sturdy highlanders has, how ever, had to battle single-handed against the most terrible odds ; and in their fight, whether it be for their fatherland or their religion, they have offered up themselves and their most cherished belongings as a willing sacrifice, rallying round their Church as the one bond of their traditional nationality.

It is to this Church, which, to the present day, acts as a powerful link, holding together the remnants of the nation scattered throughout the world, that these pages are devoted. Her history cannot be unimportant to those who study ecclesiastical questions, but such history must bear the stamp of accuracy. English readers cannot be blamed for what is provided by their own historians ; and, as to the mis representations referred to above, one instance from a well-known writer, which has been un fortunately copied by others, will be sufficient for our purpose. Gibbon says that " the Ar menians alone are the pure disciples of Eutyches, an unfortunate parent who has been renounced by the greater part of his spiritual progeny." * Gibbon's knowledge was gained from Jesuit sources (see Professor Bury's note to the above) ; and, even while he was writing these lines, the Armenian clergy were continuing to pro nounce, as they had done for centuries, their anathemas against Eutyches and the rest of the band who are recognised as heresiarchs by the Orthodox Churches.

To those who have studied the subject more intimately, and are versed in Armenian literature, it is an evident fact that the differences regarding orthodoxy and heresy, which gave rise to bitter

* Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. By E. Gibbon. Vol. v., p. 158. London: Methuen & Co., 1898.

PREFACE xi

religious animosities after the Council of Chalcedon and have continued ever since, are mostly due to trivial distinctions of meaning as to the use of words for the same thing in different languages, and seldom touch essential points. The Armenian liturgy is a proof of this statement. Side by side with the misrepresentation which has been stereotyped by Gibbon, we have sympathetic references to this Church which do honour to the spirit of criticism and of truth.

Dr. J. M. Neale thus compares the Armenian and the English Churches :

" It seems to me that the cases of the Armenian and English Churches present some parallels. As the former is confounded with Monophysite, so is the latter with Calvinian, heresy ; the one in her Creeds, the other in her Articles, seems to give some colour, at first sight, to the charge ; the one and the other, both in other formulae, and by their chief Doctors, have protested against it ; the one and the other nevertheless do contain many in their bosom who are implicated in the heresy respectively charged, and it is to be hoped that the day •will come when both one and the other, in the sight of the Church Catholic, will vindicate their innocency, and assume their own place of honour." *

One other reference on this subject would not be out of place. Archdeacon Bowling, of St. Luke's Mission in Palestine, whose interest in the Armenian Church extends over twenty years, and who throws many interesting sidelights on the Church, thus refers to the orthodoxy of that Church on page 60 of his Armenian Church f :

" In the controversy concerning the two Natures in Christ, the Armenian Church has been cruelly mis-

* A History of the Holy Eastern Church. By J. M. Neale. Part I. General Introduction. London, 1850. Vide p. 1091, " On the Claims of the Armenian Church to Orthodoxy."

| The Armenian Church. By Archdeacon Dowling, D.D. London : Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1910.

xii PREFACE

represented by the majority of historians. The opinion enunciated at the Lambeth Conference of 1908 (in the Report of the Committee on The Separate Churches of the East), containing the following paragraph, is worthy of careful consideration :

" ' The Armenian Church, now scattered far and wide, with the ancient Nation of whose history it is the most striking and significant part, declares with justice that its absence from the Council of Chalcedon was due to political reasons, more than anything else, and has always strenuously denied,, and apparently with no little reason, the charges of Aphthartodocetic heresy which has been levelled against it.'

" In order to prove that the Armenians are neither Monophysites nor Eutychians, it is necessary to state their view of their own position."

With these words, Archdeacon Dowling then proceeds to quote the opinions of Armenian divines of the early ages of their Church ; and cites, as an additional proof of his statement, extracts from the Authorised Catechism of that Church.

Dean Stanley, writing of the Armenians and their Church, thus characterises them :

" The Armenians are by far the most powerful, and the most widely diffused, in the group of purely Oriental Churches of which we are now speaking, and as such exercise a general influence over all of them. ... A race, a Church, of merchant princes, they are in quietness, in wealth, in steadiness, the ' Quakers ' of the East. . . ."*

With regard to their diffusion and influence here alluded to, a glance at Appendix II. of this work will assist in corroborating the extensive power for good the Church has been enabled to exercise in the countries of the Near East.

* Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church. By Arthur Penrbyn Stanley, D.D. London: John Murray, 1864. pp.6, 7.

PREFACE xiii

We have referred above to Dr. Neale's par allelism between the Armenian and the English Churches in being misrepresented as to matters of doctrine. We might go a step further and compare these Churches as to the spirit of liberalism and of tolerance which is as largely prevalent in the one as in the other. The author's words in this connection, so far as they refer to the Armenian Church, will be found not only illuminating, but distinctly indicative of that desire for intercommunion which all but ex tremists among Christians hope for. Indeed, this spirit has been already reciprocated in the act towards Armenians by some Anglican bishops as opportunity has occurred.

With regard to the spelling and form of Ar menian names in this work, the Armenian pro nunciation has been rigidly followed. By this process it has been possible to avoid the grotesque and arbitrary transformations, in supposed Latinised form, which have appeared in some important works on this Church. To make the names clear to English readers, a list of them used in this work is appended, with their English equivalents.

A deep debt of gratitude is due to the late Dr. John Wordsworth, Bishop of Salisbury, who, within a month of his lamented death, offered to write an Introduction to this work on a Church in which he took the keenest interest. Though the Introduction was never written, the late Bishop's notes on the points which he considered worthy of notice were inscribed by him on the back of the French edition, and are in the trans lator's possession. An equal measure of gratitude is due to Bishop Welldon for undertaking, in the midst of the numerous calls on his time, to introduce this work to English readers.

xiv PREFACE

In conclusion, the translator must ask the indulgence of the reader for any shortcomings- in his task, which should be assigned to the venturesome spirit of a layman in trespassing on ecclesiastical ground. Should the smallest measure of interest be aroused in this, the oldest national Church in the world, whose liturgy stands unrivalled for purity, and behind whose ornate ritual can be seen the simplicity of the early Christian faith, the labour of translating" will not have been undertaken in vain. The Church of Armenia has been crushed for centuries between the upper and the nether millstones of political rivalry and conquest, and during these long ages " religious liberty " has had to be secured by sheer independence of character and the shedding of much blood. What that Church needs in her dire distress is the sympathetic out stretched hand of fellowship from liberal Western Christendom, which conforms most to her own democratic spirit, to enable her to continue the work she has accomplished in keeping the fire of the faith alive for sixteen centuries against the most overwhelming odds. She does not need proselytising.

G. MARCAR GREGORY.

36, GUNTERSTONE ROAD,

WEST KENSINGTON, W., March i8th, 1912.

LIST OF ARMENIAN NAMES WITH THEIR EQUIVALENTS IN ENGLISH

Where transformations are obvious, the names are not included* Others again, such as Nerses, Aristakes, Vertanes, are purely Armenian, and must be taken in their Armenian form.

Astouadzatoor

Barsegh

Eghia or Yeghia

Eghiazar or Yeghiazar

Ghazar

Ghevond or Ghevondius

Ghoukas

Grigor

Gueorg

Hacob

Hovakim

Hovhannes or Ohan

Hovsep

Mariam

Mkrtitch

Movses

Ohan or Hovhannes

Petros

Philippos

Poghos

Sahak

Sarkis

Soghomon

Stepanos

Tirdat

Yeghia or Eghia

Yeghiazar or Eghiazar

Yeghische

Yeprem

Yeremia

Yessai

Yezr .

stands for Adeodatus. Basil. Elias. Eleazar. Lazarus.

Leon or Leontius. Luke. Gregory. George.

Jacob or James. Joakim. John. Joseph. Mary. Baptist. Moses. John. Peter. Philip. Paul. Isaac. Sergius. Solomon. Stephen. Tiridates. Elias. Eleazar. Elisha. Ephraim. Jeremiah. Isaiah. Ezra or Esdras.

PREFACE

TO THE FRENCH EDITION

A HISTORY of the Armenian Church, written by one of its most eminent representatives, is a publication which should unquestionably be use ful. It has been the aim of the author to place before the public a true picture of this oriental Christianity, with its doctrines, its creeds, its hierarchy ; and at the same time to present a popular treatise on its politics and social life. There is no attempt made here to write a full history of Armenia since its conversion to Chris tianity, as this would have entailed a voluminous mass of documentary evidence, ill-suited to the ordinary reader whose attention is claimed. The intention of the author is, therefore, to confine himself to the most salient and striking incidents, and to those features which are most suitable for giving a clear insight into this most interesting community of the East.

This history gains additional interest from the fact that it comes from the pen of Mgr. Ormanian, a child of the East, who occupied for twelve years the patriarchal see at Constantinople. In this work, therefore, we have not the hackneyed literary production of a writer who has copied from others. He sacrifices nothing for the sake of the picturesque ; he deals purely with facts and impressions. We feel, too, the absolute good faith of the author ; and that he writes not only with conviction, but with an independence of

xvii

xviii PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION

thought surprising to the European reader, who is little accustomed to have ecclesiastical matters thus dealt with.

We should, however, be mistaken did we suppose that the views expressed by the author are in any sense peculiar to him. In the essen tially democratic constitution of the Armenian Church there is inherent a liberality of thought ; and the first thing which strikes us when we study the framework of her society is, that her clergy do not form a separate class. The nation and the Church are one and the same thing. Between them there is no conflict of ascendancy or au thority ; indeed, there is no antagonism whatever. And we must in nowise imagine that because she is governed by a patriarch, the Armenian nation lives under the domination of the clergy. In the course of this work we shall see that all the actions of this high ecclesiastical dignitary are subjected to a detailed control, and that the administration of the Church is entirely in the hands of the laity. " In Turkey," writes the author, " the Church is managed by a council composed exclusively of laymen, who are elected by the parishioners." Further on he adds, " that the participation of the lay element is asserted in the first place by their electing the ministers of worship." We should likewise notice that this clergy, who are elected and are controlled in their actions, exist only on alms and voluntary gifts, and are thus placed completely in the power of the congregation. Thus the laity, as part of the Church, and in combination with the clergy, form a closely knit body corporate as a nation. In short, the two elements are so well blended and intermingled, that the term National Church would seem to have been framed with special applicability to .this nation.

PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION xix

It is the more to be justified, as the nation, ever since her conversion to Christianity, has woke up to a consciousness of herself. Constituted in the fourth century on the basis of faith, she has never since then ceased to blend her destiny with that of her Church. This peculiarity reveals itself in a wonderful system of organisation and con servation. In the Church, where he seeks asylum, the Armenian has found not only a rallying centre, but an ark, wherein is faithfully preserved all that links him to the past : traditions, customs, language, and literature. It is, doubtless, to this strict identity of interest, to this harmony of feeling with the lay element, that this Church owes her ideas of tolerance and of liberalism. She owes them also to even more profound reasons.

She believes that no Church, however great in herself, represents the whole of Christendom ; that each one, taken singly, can be mistaken, and to the Universal Church alone belongs the privilege of infallibility in her dogmatic decisions. But if it is incumbent that dogmas remain intact, be cause they are, as it were, the threads which connect the present with the original beginnings ; on the other hand, the Church's advance in doctrine can in no way be hindered. This latter is but the expression of the time being, and subject, there fore, to modification ; for it is not possible to evade the law of change. If I am not mistaken, all progress centres in this theory.

The principle of conservation, as the role of the Eastern Churches, is well expressed by the author when he says that these primitive Churches constituted themselves in regular order by nation alities. The reason for this separate group ing was determined, doubtless, by the necessity there existed of evangelising the people in their

xx PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION

own tongue. Alphabets had to be invented for languages which had none, in order to render the sacred books accessible to the people, and thus came the first step for the unlettered races towards an intellectual life. Such was the case with the Armenians in the fifth century, and with the Slavs in the ninth century. Had it not been for this circumstance, it is probable that the greater part of these racial elements would have degenerated into heterogeneous masses without adhesion, and so have been absorbed by conquering hordes. But in order to maintain permanency, they had but to gather round their Churches, under whose aegis they have lived, awaiting the providential hour when they would regain their rights. In this way a host of nationalities are disclosed which the world looked upon as dead. In the eighteenth century the Greeks were an ignored race, and no one then thought the peasantry of this name would ever take shape in the solidarity of an independent nation. But since their emancipation, public writers and statesmen no longer recog nise in the East any but orthodox Greeks. In a still greater measure were ignored the Slavs of the Danube and of the Balkans, who were com monly taken for the latter (Greeks), on whom the attention of the European world was suddenly riveted in 1821. The Greeks themselves contri buted to keep up this illusion with more than indiscreet complacency. " Under the denomina tion of orthodox Greeks are comprised all Chris tians, to whatever race they may belong, who are living under the Turkish sceptre," wrote Pitzipios in 1856. The great movement of nationalities, as it has been called, has dispersed these illusions. Awakened by contact with Western thought, the national sentiment, which had lain dormant in the soul of these races, was not less keen than that

PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION xxi

among the Italians and the Germans. They caught at a revival of national life as if it had never undergone an interruption, renewing their traditions and assimilating all that seemed to favour their development. Like the Seven Sleepers of the legend, they awoke without sus pecting that they were emerging from a sleep in which they had been wrapped for several centuries. What is no less surprising is that the Armenian people, notwithstanding their wide dispersion throughout the world, are still bound together by a community of sentiment and character.

It is for these reasons that the question of re ligion does not cease to be vital among the Chris tian communities of the East. There the spell of religion is ever great, and the modern spirit has scarcely touched it ; and even if the younger generation is less docile than formerly to the guidance of the clergy, nevertheless no one dreams of breaking the covenant which the nation has entered into with the Church. I have often had a very clear impression that even when he loses his faith, the Armenian never ceases to continue loyal to his Church. He instinctively feels that if she becomes undermined, all will crumble.

If, since its conversion to Christianity, this nation has suffered an arrest of development, this tendency has been due to historical circumstances of an exceptional character. Isolated on her high plateaux, on one of the great highways which give passage to migratory hordes and con quering bands, the country of Armenia has been a tilt-yard wherein all old Asiatic feuds have been settled. Invasion has succeeded invasion, and pillage has followed slaughter, ever since the seventh century. In short, her history is but one long martyrology, to use the author's expression. Armenia had been compelled to submit to force,

xxii PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION

but in yielding under the weight of an unparalleled fate, she has none the less been able, while saving her very life, to rescue from shipwreck what was essential, that is to say, those elements of a regeneration which have been of advantage in every way, and which will add efficacy to the powers of reorganised Turkey.

We know that the Turks, under the domination of their theocratic principle, made scarcely any change in the condition of the people whom they subdued. They contented themselves by the limitations imposed on them in the Koran, which direct that believers should allow the conquered to retain their possessions on condition of their paying the capitation tax (kharadf}. Turning this arrangement to account, the Christians or ganised themselves as best they could and lived their own appropriate lives, while remaining in subjection to the power with which they were incorporated.

The patriarch, who received his investiture from the Porte, became the lawful head of the nation (Millet bachi}. As the chief, responsible to the Sovereign Power, he looked after the collection of the taxes, which was carried out through the medium of agents and under his warrant. Matters of litigation were brought be fore his court, whether such were civil or criminal, that is, those affecting marriage and social status as citizens. The Greeks were subject to a similar system. Indeed, Mahomed II. imposed on the Armenians just those arrangements which he had made with the patriarch Gennadius.

We shall see that this close union of the Armen ians with their Church in nowise impeded their evolution in the direction of modern thought. In spite of their uncertain position, their social and civilising agency has been more considerable

PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION xxiii

than would be supposed. It is chiefly through their medium that their Musulman countrymen gained, in the first instance, their connection with the thoughts and customs of the West. It was among them that the sultan Mahmoud found the leading auxiliaries for his reform, of which he was the relentless originator. He knew how to utilise their business aptitude, their skill in the management of finance ; and, had it not been for official irregularities, the East would have been able to turn to better account the commercial and industrial genius of this people.

After the promulgation of the Hatt-i-Cherif of 1839, which was the charter of enfranchisement of the Christians and the first step towards the secularisation of the State, their first thought was to make themselves fall in with some of the ideas and methods of modern Europe. Above all, they endeavoured to reduce the powers of the patriarch in the interest of the lay element. It was a hark ing back to the spirit of their Church's constitu tion, which excluded all ecclesiastical preponder ance in the domain of civil rights. In 1847, in spite of opposition from the moneyed class, two Committees were established to sit with the patriarch : one Committee, composed of the clergy, for the supervision of the acts of the spiritual administration ; and the other, a lay body, to concern itself with civil matters.

At length, in 1860, the nation, emboldened by this success, obtained, with the concurrence of the Porte, a constitution, the fundamental idea of which was based on the principle of the sovereignty of the people. It is true it but settled private interests, but it caused none the less an important change in the customs of the East. By this constitution, the patriarch was recognised as the head of the nation, and as the community's official

xxiv PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION

intermediary with the Porte. This important point of the national statute could not possibly have been modified without jeopardising the re maining privileges that had been granted ; but the difficulty was overcome by subordinating the decisions of that dignitary to the control of the general assembly. By the help of these arrange ments a prolific crop of social work was the immediate outcome, which was a certain proof of the eagerness of the masses for an amelioration of their status. Its first concern was to organise public education on a free basis. In the statement of general principles, it is stated that the nation resolves that all children of both sexes, of what ever condition, should, without exception, receive the benefits of education, and should at least be initiated in essential knowledge. This was just the syllabus which the French Republic was destined to adopt some twenty years later for elementary education. To provide for the upkeep of this education, the nation, which already paid its share of the State taxes, was obliged to inflict on itself an additional burden. This was all the more heavy owing to the fact that the contribu tions likewise provided for the support of a large number of hospitals and provident institutions.

These social advantages, which the tolerant rule of Abdul-Aziz had rendered possible, could not fail to excite the distrust of his suspicious suc cessor. Abdul-Hamid looked with displeasure on the strange paradox of a liberal system flourish ing under the shadow of his despotic rule ; of the Armenian, subdued and ground down like an Ottoman subject, but free as far as he was a member of his Church. Such an anomaly could not be tolerated. Under a ban of suspicion at once in Turkey and in Russia, the Armenians ceased to have a single moment of tranquillity.

PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION xxv

Accordingly, no people hailed with more sincere joy the rule of liberty which was forcibly in augurated by the Young Turk party in July, 1908. They saw in this unexpected event not only a guarantee against the excesses of an arbitrary rule, but the sanction of a progress which was already to be found in their principles, and towards which they had a natural bent. There was here a community of ideas which could con tribute potently to the cause of conciliation : which, in fact, has happened. But the new government has tried to accomplish still more. It has felt that the moment had come for doing away with, as unnecessary, the privileges of religious communities. It has considered that, with the advent of a new rule, it was fitting to apply new conditions. The Armenians are, un doubtedly, far from averse to sharing in this view. As they do not entertain any plans of a peculiarly selfish nature, they are not inclined to place any obstacle in the path of conciliation. They know that the de facto situation of to-day is inconsistent with the fundamental principle of parliamentary government, and so long as this inconsistency remains, it is not possible to say that the legis lative authority rests on the will of the people ; but still the work of union must find its fulfilment on a footing of equality. Without ignoring the importance of the results already attained, the Christians look forward to a further effort on the part of the government. If it would direct the evolution to its proper fulfilment, it is necessary so to trim the ship of State in the direction of a secularisation which should be as complete as possible. It is then that the hard and fast barriers that separate the various intermixed peoples will fall of themselves ; for, if religion has in itself the certainty of continuance, it has at

xxvi PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION

the same time morally rendered some antagonistic to others. A general movement of reform can alone lead to this result : its first condition is — and it should in no case be overlooked — a pre paration of character by the schools and by the practice of liberty.

It is only at this price that they will be able to unite together and form a homogeneous body which will make the common fatherland great and prosperous.

BERTRAND BAREILLES.

CONSTANTINOPLE, June ist, 1910.

CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTION BY BISHOP WELLDON ... V PREFACE ix

LIST OF ARMENIAN NAMES \VITH THEIR EQUIVA LENTS IN ENGLISH ..... XV PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION . . . xvii INTRODUCTORY . XXxi

PART I

HISTORY

CHAPTER

I. ORIGIN OF THE ARMENIAN CHURCH . . 3

II. THE PRIMITIVE ERA OF THE ARMENIAN CHURCH 6

III. THE COMPLETE CONVERSION OF ARMENIA . IO

IV. FORMATION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HIER

ARCHY 14

V. THE ARMENIAN CHURCH IN THE FOURTH CEN TURY l8

VI. THE BEGINNING OF ARMENIAN LITERATURE . 22

VII. THE ARMENIAN CHURCH IN THE FIFTH CENTURY 2&

VIII. THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON ... 3!

IX. A SUCCESSION OF QUARRELS . . 37

X. A RETURN TO THE QUARRELS ... 42

XI. PEREGRINATIONS OF PATRIARCHS . . 47

XII. THE PATRIARCHAL SEAT IN CILICIA . . 53,

xxv ii

xxviii CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

XIII. ATTEMPTS TOWARDS UNION • • • 57

XIV. LEANINGS TOWARDS UNITY ... 65 XV. THE RETURN TO ETCHMIADZIN ... 7!

XVI. THE PATRIARCHATE OF CONSTANTINOPLE . 76

XVII. A PERIOD OF AWAKENING. . • 79

XVIII. A SURVEY OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY . 84

XIX. A SURVEY OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY . 89

PART II DOCTRINE

XX. THE PRINCIPLES OF DOGMAS ... 97

XXI. THE DOGMAS OF THE ARMENIAN CHURCH . IOI

XXII. THE PROFESSION OF FAITH . . . 105

XXIII. THE SPIRIT OF TOLERANCE . . . 110

XXIV. THE DOCTRINE OF SACRAMENTS . .114 XXV. PRECISION IN DOCTRINE Il8

PART III RULE

XXVI. ORGANISATION OF THE HIERARCHY . . 125

XXVII. THE ARMENIAN HIERARCHY . . . 131

XXVIII. ECCLESIASTICAL FUNCTIONS . . . 135

CONTENTS xxix

PART IV DISCIPLINE

CHAPTER PAOB

XXIX. THE CLERGY AND CELIBACY . . . 141

XXX. THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVENUES . . 146

XXXI. THE LAITY IN THE CHURCH . . . 151

XXXII. THE NAME OF THE CHURCH . . . 157

PART V

LITURGY

XXXIII. THE CHURCH BUILDINGS . . . 163

XXXIV. THE MINISTERS OF WORSHIP . . . 168 XXXV. THE OBLIGATIONS OF WORSHIP . . 175

XXXVI. THE SYSTEM OF THE CALENDAR . . l8o

XXXVII. THE DOMINICAL FESTIVALS . . . 185

XXXVIII. THE COMMEMORATION OF SAINTS . .

PART VI LITERATURE

XXXIX. A GENERAL SURVEY .... 201 XL. THE LATEST SIGNS .... 205

xxx CONTENTS

PART VII THE PRESENT TIME

CHAPTER PAOB

XLI. THE EXTERNAL ASPECT .... 211

XLII. THE VARIOUS SECTS .... 214

XLIII. THE NATIONAL CHARACTER . . . 2l8

XLIV. THE INFLUENCE OF THE CHURCH 222

APPENDICES

NUMBER

I. CHRONOLOGY OF SUPREME PATRIARCHS . 22Q II. STATISTICS OF ARMENIAN DIOCESES . . 239

INDEX 245

INTRODUCTORY

THE work which we present to the public is not exhaustive. The issues affecting the Church in general, or the Churches in particular, open up too vast a field for critical, historical, and philo sophical discussions for us to venture upon ; and, moreover, such is not the course which it is our intention to adopt. It will be acknowledged that the Church still retains unimpaired her existence, and even her influence, in spite of the hard blows dealt her by sceptics. Though certain points of doctrine have been held to be prepos terous, and historic facts have been relegated to the realm of myths, the Church in general, and the Churches in particular, have, nevertheless, not ceased, in the full light of the twentieth century, to show proofs of a remarkable vitality ; and in the tendency to intellectual progress, both social and political, we are compelled to take into account the influence which the Churches still exercise over humanity. But let us leave generalities to come to the aim we have in view. For some half a score of years past, the Armenian, at one time almost forgotten, has reappeared in contemporary existence. His past, his present, and his future constitute so many subjects of study ; and the world has come to interest itself in this ancient race which, through the centuries and under the most cruel vicissitudes, has never ceased to give proofs of its inexhaustible vitality. If, to succeed in fathoming the secret of a nation's

xxxii INTRODUCTORY

life, it is necessary that we should study its religion, for this very reason we see that a work such as this is not without its usefulness ; still more, if we remember that the Armenian Church — which, in our own case, is closely identified with the nation — has played an eminent role in the national life.

Indeed, this Church is scarcely known to the world at large. The most erudite writers on ecclesiastical and social subjects have but seldom turned their attention to her. Nevertheless, in spite of her unassuming position and the general ignorance of her circumstances, she still continues to bear an importance of the very first order with regard to the character of the principles and of the doctrines which are enshrined within her. These principles, let us depend on it, are worthy to serve as a basis for the ideal work of Christian unity and purity.

But, instead of anticipating our conclusions, let us rather endeavour to dive into the heart of our subject. In order to do this, we must in the first place present a concise, but exact, summary of the essential points in the history, the doctrine, the discipline, the rule, the liturgy,, and the literature of this Church. In this way, by a convenient and natural process, it is our intention to guide the reader to those conclusions, so that they may be logically clear and be im printed on his understanding.

PART I HISTORY

CHAPTER I

ORIGIN OF THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

THE facts connected with the origin of every Church are hidden under an impenetrable veil ; and our inquiry is baffled by reason of the want of genuine documents such as would throw light on the doings of the first apostles and on apostolic activity in general. The Roman Church, which, in this respect, appears to be in a more favourable position, from the fact that she took her rise in the capital of the empire, has to grapple with the selfsame difficulties, when it comes to the question of proving the sojourn of St. Peter at Rome. And yet this is, for her, an essential fact ; for it lies at the root of her entire system. For lack of something better, ecclesiastical history contents itself with evidence of strong probability, with arguments based on tradition, and on occurrences which have been kept alive through successive generations. It is sufficient that the great mass of presumptions is not opposed to the positive and ascertained data of history. We should not ask more of the Armenian Church to prove her origin.

The primitive and unvarying tradition of this Church acknowledges as original founders the apostles St. Thaddeus and St. Bartholomew, whom she designates by the appellation of the First Illuminators of Armenia. She protects their graves, which are preserved and venerated in the

4 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

ancient churches of Ardaze (Magou) and Albac (Baschkale), situated in the south-east of Armenia. All Christian Churches are unanimous in recog nising the tradition concerning St. Bartholomew, his apostolic journeys, his preaching, and his martyrdom in Armenia. The name Albanus, which is given to the scene of his martyrdom, is one and the same with the name Albacus, hallowed by the Armenian tradition. With regard to St. Thaddeus, traditions vary. Some recognise in him one Thaddeus Didymus, brother of the apostle St. Thomas, and according to these he is said to have travelled to Ardaze by way of Edessa, living in secret among the Greeks and the Latins. With regard to the Syrian tradition, which gives credit to the existence of a Thaddeus Didymus, its acceptance is questionable so far as it relates to the journey from Edessa to Ardaze ; but, on examining this doubtful point a little more closely, we discover omissions in the text which are seemingly wilful, and disclose even an ana chronism, which would transfer the incident to the second century of the Christian era. How ever, without wishing to dwell unduly on the importance of that tradition, we would point out that the name of Thaddeus cannot be discarded ; because we can point to a second tradition, ac cording to which the evangelisation of Armenia was the work of the apostle St. Judas Thaddeus, surnamed Lebbeus. This circumstance, admitted by the Greek and Latin Churches, and recognised by Armenian writers, is fully in accordance with historic truth, and goes to confirm generally the tradition, supported by the undoubted proof of the sanctuary at Ardaze.

The apostolic character of the Armenian Church, which she has always claimed, and which she has proclaimed in all her transactions, bears testimony

ORIGIN OF THE ARMENIAN CHURCH 5

on the one hand to an origin both ancient and primitive, and on the other hand to one which is direct and autocephalic, without the inter vening agency of another Church.

The apostolic origin, which is essential to every Christian Church, in order to place her in union with her Divine Founder, is claimed to be direct when that origin is traced back to the individual work of one of the apostles ; it is indirect when it is derived from a Church which herself has a primitively apostolic basis. The Armenian Church can rightly lay claim to such a direct apostolic origin. The chronology which is generally adopted ascribes to the mission of St. Thaddeus a period of eight years (35-43 A.D.) ; and to that of St. Bartholomew a period of sixteen years (44-60 A.D.). It is inexpedient in this place to discuss the relative details regarding the question of dates and places, which is apt to lead to endless controversy.

The apostolic origin of the Armenian Church is hence established as an incontrovertible fact in ecclesiastical history. And if tradition and historic sources, which sanction this view, should give occasion for criticism, these have no greater weight than the difficulties created with regard to the origin of other apostolic Churches, which are universally admitted as such.

CHAPTER II

THE PRIMITIVE ERA OF THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

IT was in the year 301 A.D., at the beginning of the fourth century, that Christianity became the prevailing religion in Armenia. Before that date it had never ceased to be the object of persecu tion. But we must admit that the accounts which have come down to us of the existence and of the progress of Christianity in Armenia during the three previous centuries, are as scanty as they are devoid of importance. They cannot bear, from the point of view of fullness of information, com parison with the records which deal with the same period of Graeco-Roman history. But deficiency of records by no means establishes a proof of the non-existence of an actual fact.

The Graeco-Roman world, then at the apogee of its civilisation, comprised within it a large number of writers and scholars, and through its schools was in the forefront of intellectual progress. Armenia, on the other hand, was still plunged in ignorance. Far from being in posses sion of a national literature, she was still in search of an alphabet. Under these conditions, one must admit that it has been difficult for her to write accounts and narratives of events, which could not but have been of interest to posterity. Nevertheless, whatever facts have been handed down to us by national tradition, with the ad ditional support of the narratives of foreign

THE PRIMITIVE ERA 7

writers, are more than sufficient, we presume, to prove the existence of Christianity at definite periods. Now, common sense precludes us from thinking that the spread of the faith could have undergone intermittent eclipses during this space of time. Records such as these, detached and with no connecting bond between them, follow each other during that period, and prove the unbroken existence of Christianity in Armenia.

In this connection we should mention an early tradition ascribing to the see of Ardaze a line of seven bishops, namely, Zakaria for a period of sixteen years ; Zementus, four years ; Atirnerseh, fifteen years ; Mousche, thirty years ; Schahen, twenty-five years ; Schavarsch, twenty years ; and Ghevondius, seventeen years. A computa tion of these periods carries us to the end of the second century.

Another tradition assigns to the see of Sunik a line of eight bishops, who were the successors of St. Eustathius, the first evangeliser of that province. These bishops are Kumsi, Babylas, Mousche, who was afterwards translated to the see of Ardaze, Movses (Moses) of Taron, Sahak (Isaac) of Taron, Zirvandat, Stepanus (Stephen), and Hovhannes (John). With this last we are brought to the first quarter of the third century.

Moreover, Eusebius quotes a letter of the patriarch Dionysius of Alexandria, written in 254 A.D., to Mehroujan (Mitrozanes), bishop of Armenia, who was a successor of the above- mentioned bishops of Ardaze.

The Armenian Church contains in her martyr- ology the commemoration of many Armenian martyrs of the apostolic era. We notice therein the names of St. Sandoukhte, of royal blood ; of St. Zarmandoukhte, a noble lady ; of satraps such as St. Samuel and St. Israel ; of a thousand

8 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

Armenians who were martyred at the same time as the apostle St. Thaddeus ; of St. Ogouhie, a royal princess, and of St. Terentius, a soldier, who were martyred with the apostle St. Bartholomew; and of the holy virgins Mariam of Houssik, Anna of Ormisdat, and Martha of Makovtir, disciples of St. Bartholomew. The Church calendar contains the festivals of St. Oski (Chryssus) and of his four companions, of St. Soukias and of his eighteen companions, who were martyred at the beginning of the second century. The Latin martyrology commemorates St. Acacius with ten thousand militiamen, who were martyred on Ararat, in Armenia, in the reign of Hadrian.

To these facts must be added the passage in Tertullian, the well-known ecclesiastical writer of the second century, who, in quoting the text of the Acts of the Apostles (ii. 9), where the countries are enumerated whose languages were heard by the people on the day of Pentecost, makes mention of Armenia, lying between Mesopotamia and Cappadocia, in place of Jiidaea, which is the one named in the text of the ordinary Bible. Judaea could not have been included among foreign countries, and we know that it is not situated between Mesopotamia and Cappadocia. Logic ally speaking, the country indicated is no other than Armenia. St. Augustine likewise follows the reading of Tertullian. We thus see that the two fathers of the African Church were impressed with the conviction that Christianity was spread among the Armenians in the apostolic age.

Indeed, the almost instantaneous conversion of the whole of Armenia to Christianity at the be ginning of the fourth century cannot be explained but by the pre-existence of a Christian element which had taken root in the country. As a matter of fact, history records religious persecutions which

THE PRIMITIVE ERA 9

must have been perpetrated by the kings Artasches (Artaxerxes) about the year no A.D., Khosrov (Chosroes) about 230, and Tirdat (Tiridates) about 287. These would certainly not have occurred if there had not been in Armenia a large number of Christians. It was during the last of these persecutions that the martyrdom took place of St. Theodore Salahouni, who was put to death by his own father, the satrap Souren.

Confronted by such facts, we are justified in inferring the existence of Christianity in Armenia during the first three centuries ; that it counted amongst its adherents a considerable number of the people ; and that this first nucleus of the faithful, by its steadfast energy, at length succeeded in gaining the mastery over both obstacles and persecutions.

CHAPTER III

THE COMPLETE CONVERSION OF ARMENIA

THE date of the conversion of Armenia as a whole to Christianity, or, in other words, of the institu tion of that religion as the dominant one of the country, is commonly ascribed to the year 301, by the most careful chronological research. Later writers even place the date at the year 285, but that cannot be regarded as probable. The date 301 is sufficient for our purpose to show that Armenia was the first state in the world to pro claim Christianity as its official religion, by the conversion of the king, the royal family, the satraps, the army, and the people. The con version of Constantine took place but twelve years later, that is, in 313.

The author of this wonderful conversion was St. Grigor Partev (Gregory the Parthian), sur- named by the Armenians Lusavoritch, that is, The Illuminator, in that he enlightened the nation with the light of the gospel. The king Tiridates, who was joint apostle and illuminator with him, belonged to the dynasty of the Arsacides, of Parthian origin, with which the father of St. Grigor was also connected ; so that in this way a kinship united the convert king with the saint ; but a more potent bond than kinship in blood was the faith which united the two.

A political insurrection had at that time been brought about in Persia, and as a sequel to' it

CONVERSION OF ARMENIA n

the Arsacides were succeeded by the Sassanides. Nevertheless, the Armenian branch of the Arsa cides still continued in power. In order to ensure the security of the new dynasty, the overthrow of the portion still remaining defiant had to be considered ; but the army was not on the side of the Sassanides. Then Anak, an Arsacide prince, volunteered to assassinate Khosrov (Chos- roes), king of Armenia, a near relative of his. It came about that he himself also fell a victim to assassination at the hands of the Armenian satraps. Grigor was the son of Anak, and Tiri- dates that of Chosroes ; and in the year 240, the date of the double assassination, these two were still minors.

Without entering into biographical details, it will suffice to mention that Grigor was educated in the principles of Christianity at Caesarea in Cappadocia, and that Tiridates, brought up in the religion of his ancestors, had to submit to the changes brought about by the wars between the Romans and the Persians. With the support of the emperor Diocletian, he ascended the throne for the last time in 287 ; and it was on the occasion of some votive festivities, organised at Eriza (Erzinguian) for the celebration of this event, that the faith and the family connection of Grigor were revealed to him. He then learnt that Grigor, after excruciating tortures, had been cast into the dungeon or the pits (Virap) of Artaschat (Artaxata), where he remained in carcerated for about fifteen years. That he sur vived this long ordeal is a striking testimony in history of divine intervention.

At this time a band of Christian virgins, under the guidance of the abbess, St. Gaiane, came to Vagharschapat, the capital of Armenia, in their flight from the persecutions which had been raging

12 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

in the provinces of the Roman Empire. It was generally believed that they came from Rome, by way of Palestine and Mesopotamia ; but there is nothing to preclude the idea that they came rather from the adjacent provinces, and most probably from Midzbin (Nisibis), if we take into account the acts connected with the martyrdom of St. Phebronia. The exceptional beauty of one of these virgins, St. Rhipsime, attracted the king, who desired to get possession of her. But, be sides the resistance she offered to his attempts, various circumstances, such as the martyrdom of the thirty-seven virgins, the fit of demoniacal * possession, to which the king was a prey, the futility of the remedies, the insistence of his sister, Khosrovidoukhte, beseeching him to implore the help of the God of the Christians, his healing obtained through the prayers of Grigor, who had at length been restored to liberty, are the events which followed each other during the latter months of the year 300 and the early months of 301, and these led to the conversion of Tiridates, who, with the zeal of a neophyte, hastened to pro claim Christianity as the religion of the State.

Grigor, who was a mere layman, had at his command neither missionaries nor a band of clergy ; and yet before the end of the year 301 the religious aspect of Armenia had undergone a complete change ; the worship of the gods had almost entirely disappeared, and the profession of Christianity had become general. This would be an event of an unaccountable nature, did we not admit the pre-existence of Christianity in the country, as it has been already pointed out.

Evidences of this wonderful conversion are to be found not only in the narratives of contem-

*£Lycanthropy. The king is said to have assumed the form of a boar.

CONVERSION OF ARMENIA 13

porary writers, and of historians of the succeeding century, but also in the existence of monuments such as the churches of St. Rhipsime, of St. Gaiane, and of St. Mariamne, or of Schoghakath, which were built in the fourth century in the vicinity of Etchmiadzin (formerly Vagharschapat) ; and in the tombs of the martyred virgins, as well as in authentic inscriptions which relate to them. A further testimony, not less valuable, is also to be found in the writings of Eusebius, who mentions the war of the year 311, which the emperor Maximianus, the Dacian, declared against the Armenians on account of their recent conversion.

CHAPTER IV

FORMATION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HIERARCHY

OWING to the splendour of the services he had rendered, St. Grigor was naturally chosen to be the head of the Armenian Church. Raised to this dignity by the will of the king and of the nation, he received episcopal consecration at the hands of Leontius, archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, in the year 302. The event is attested by all historians of the period and by national tradition. But this consecration gave rise to a controversy with regard to its signifi cance, and consequently, as to the nature of the hierarchic relation between the sees of Armenia and of Caesarea. According to the Greeks, the see of Armenia was suffragan to that of Caesarea, and the antagonism, which divided them in the fifth century, should be ascribed to a schism. According to the Latins, the see of Armenia, originally connected with that of Caesarea, was subsequently instituted as an autocephalic see through the licence of pope Sylvester I. Such is not the opinion of the Armenians, who believe that the see of Armenia is of apostolic creation, and that it has been independent since its origin. It is certain that it was but revived by St. Grigor, and the consecration, which he received at Caesarea, by no means indicated subordination, nor an hierarchic dependence.

Those who endeavour to make the see of

THE ECCLESIASTICAL HIERARCHY 15

Armenia suffragan to that of Caesarea, take their stand on the hypothesis that the apostolic preach ing in Armenia was nothing but a passing episode, which ended with the death of the apostles ; that the preaching of St. Grigor would not have taken place but by direction of the see of Caesarea ; that Christianity, in fact, was not established in Armenia, for the first time, until the fourth century. After what has already been said, it is not neces sary to recapitulate the evidences of the positive existence of Christianity in Armenia before the time of St. Grigor.

As to the supposed licence granted by Sylvester, it rests on no more than an apocryphal docu ment, which was fabricated by the Armenians at the time of the Crusades. The object of that document was to protect the independence of the see of Armenia without offending the amour propre of the papacy, and at the same time to invoke the aid of the Crusaders in the interests of their kingdom in Cilicia. Moreover, all historical, chronological, critical, and philological information at our disposal unite in declaring the spuriousness of this document, which no longer finds a defender. The independence of the see of Armenia from the very beginning, which has never ceased to be maintained by the patriarchs and writers of the Armenian Church, is superabundantly confirmed by other facts and incidents.

It is well known that the system of jurisdiction and the mutual dependence of patriarchs and of metropolitans in the Roman Empire was modelled on the civil organisation of prefects and of pro-consuls. The two institutions, civil and ecclesiastical, were in exact juxtaposition. Conse quently, those regions, which happened not to form an integral part of the empire, remained outside the organisation of the patriarchates

16 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

which were there established. It was thus that the independent sees of Armenia, of Persia, and of Ethiopia came into being outside the empire.

It is true that the existence of the provinces of First Armenia (Sebaste) and of Second Armenia (Melitene), within the limits of the jurisdiction of the exarchate of Pontus (Caesarea), could frequently have given rise to a confusion of names ; for these two provinces have been confounded with Armenia Major and Armenia Minor. If we were to compare the Statement of the patriarchates with the Lists of civil provinces, this mistake would be clearly seen.

At no period has the see of Caesarea, nor that of Antioch or Constantinople, exercised any authority or jurisdiction in Armenia properly so called ; and all that is to be found in this connection in the letters of St. Basil of Caesarea relates ex clusively to the bishoprics of Nicopolis, of Satala, etc., which were situated within the limits of the First and Second Armenias, and which were de pendent on the exarchate of Pontus.

Moreover, the history of the ecclesiastical re lations between the chief sees at the beginning of the fourth century and before the Council of Nicaea in 325, if carefully studied, will be found to contain nothing to induce us to presume the intervention of one see in the affairs of another ; and that is not surprising, for each ecclesiastical district had its limits strictly confined to that of the political district, on the model of which it was constituted.

Besides, we do not find in the history of the fourth and fifth centuries that any alteration had occurred in the relations between the sees of Armenia and of Caesarea. This absence of evi dence justifies us in concluding that the same system of independence had not ceased to be the

THE ECCLESIASTICAL HIERARCHY 17

governing principle of this Church since her in stitution.

In fact, all that the advocates of a contrary view have been able to formulate up to the present amounts to pure hypothesis. Their views are based on a state of things which never existed in the century of which we are speaking, but were rather the outcome of later centuries. During the Byzantine domination in Armenia, and later, under the influence of the Crusades, incidents of an indistinct and questionable nature may have affected the relations of different sees : but those incidents could have had no retrospective action, nor could they have altered the issues of earlier centuries.

Therefore, the consecration of St. Grigor by the archbishop of Caesarea must be ascribed to circumstances of a casual nature, perhaps even to a personal desire on the part of St. Grigor, who had received his education in Caesarea. It should not be used as an argument from which we are to infer a system of hierarchic relationship.

CHAPTER V

THE ARMENIAN CHURCH IN THE FOURTH CENTURY

ST. GRIGOR controlled the Armenian Church for a quarter of a century, carrying out all that was necessary for bestowing on her an organisation both perfect and sound. We are indebted to him for the canons which bear his name ; for the homilies which are ascribed to him, and for certain services of a disciplinary and liturgical order, which date back to his time. He established close on four hundred episcopal and archiepiscopal dioceses for the spiritual government of Armenia and of the surrounding country. He was the moving spirit in the conversion of Georgia, of Caspian Albania, and of Atropatene, whither he despatched leaders and ecclesiastics. He died at the time of the meeting of the Council of Nicaea (325). His sons succeeded him ; first the younger, who was unmarried, St. Aristakes (325-333) ; then the elder, St. Vertanes (333-341), who was a married man. The latter had as his successor his own son, St. Houssik (341-347). The reten tion of the patriarchate in the family of St. Grigor was at the wish of the nation, either as a desire to do homage to the great Illuminator, or as an un conscious compliance with the influences of a pagan custom. The refusal of the sons of Houssik to take orders introduced to the patriarchal see Paren of Aschtischat, a collateral relative (348-352) ; soon, however, the succession reverted to the direct

18

IN THE FOURTH CENTURY 19

line by the election of St. Nerses, the grandson of Houssik (353-373). But while the only son of Nerses was still of an age which made him in eligible for preferment, the nation arranged for the successive appointment of Schahak (373-377), Zaven (377-381), and Aspourakes (381-386), the descendants, all of them, of the priestly household of Albianus, who had assisted St. Grigor in the work of evangelisation. After that the patriarchal dignity reverted once more to the family of Grigor, in the person of the son of Nerses, St. Sahak (Isaac), who completed his full jubilee on the patriarchal throne (387-439). It is, indeed, true that the accuracy of the chronology of the patriarchs of the fourth century is disputed by modern historians, but the data from which we draw our facts have been gathered by research made directly from the original sources.

The Armenian Church in the fourth century, though hierarchically and administratively well organised, lacked, nevertheless, an element of the utmost necessity : a version of the Bible and a ritual written in her own language ; the Armenian, who was as yet unprovided with an alphabet, could not set down in writing the living word of the sacred books. Scholastic instruction was acquired in foreign languages, and the famous schools of Caesarea in Cappadocia and of Edessa in Osroene were the only centres of enlightenment accessible to Armenia at that time. The Greek language was in use in the schools of Caesarea, where the students of the northern provinces resorted ; Syrian prevailed at Edessa, where flocked the students from the south. St. Grigor was the first to establish schools, at the head of which he was obliged to appoint foreign teachers. His successors followed his example ; but it was St. Nerses who gave the most intense impetus

20 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

to the furtherance of scholastic and charitable institutions.

In spite of the combined efforts of St. Grigor and of king Tiridates towards the complete Christianisation of Armenia, pagan worship had not yet entirely disappeared from the country. In the mountainous districts the old-established deities were still in evidence by their altars and their priests. In vain were the efforts of the patriarchs to root out these ancient practices, which retained their hold until the time of St. Nerses, who dealt them a severe blow. Yet traces of them were still met with in the time of St. Sahak. What obstinately held their ground were pagan customs, and their prevalence continued among the people, and more especially in the palace of the sovereigns and among the satraps. The patriarchs, at the risk of bringing on themselves the fury of the civil power, often had need to exert all their pastoral courage in battling against the abuses and the moral iniquities of such a society, not yet sufficiently enlightened by Christianity. It was on this account that St. Aristakes was assassinated by the satrap of Dzovk (Sophene) ; that St. Vertanes was obliged to escape from the pursuit of the mountaineers of Sim (Sassoun), who were stirred up by the queen ; that St. Houssik died under the scourgings of king Tiran ; and that St. Daniel of Aschtischat, who had been nominated to the patriarchate, came to a similar end. But these persecutions did in no way moderate the zeal of these saintly pontiffs.

Concerning the doctrine which was observed by the prelates of the early Church, there is nothing new to say. The whole Church in the fourth century was united by the same dogmas. The East and the West were in complete fellowship in faith and in charity. The chief heresies which

IN THE FOURTH CENTURY 21

arose in the course of that century in the East, those of the Arians and the Macedonians, were condemned by the Councils of Nicaea (325) and of Constantinople (381), the decisions of which were strictly observed by the Armenians. St. Aristakes was himself present at the first Council ; and if, in the second, the Armenians had no representatives, they, nevertheless, never ceased to abide by the letter and the spirit of its decisions. The Armenian national liturgy, as we have said, had not yet been framed for want of an alphabet and of a literature adapted to its needs. The Bible and the rituals were read in the Greek and Syriac languages. But, as much as the people were ignorant of both languages, an oral transla tion was rendered to them in the church itself. A special order of translators (Thargmanitch) had to be included in the religious service, to orally interpret the passages of the holy scriptures which were read by the readers (V erdzanogh) . They ex plained the prayers of the ritual and instructed the people, in their mother tongue, in certain prayers based on the psalms and the offices. If we were to note the differences of phraseology between the construction of the psalms of the offices and of that in the text of the scriptures, we would find two translations : the former, dating from the fourth century, for the use of the people ; the latter, a classical one of the fifth century, based on the Greek text.

CHAPTER VI

THE BEGINNING OF ARMENIAN LITERATURE

THE absence of an alphabet and of any sort of written literature placed a fundamental obstacle, not only to the development of the intellectual and social life of the nation, but also to the existence and the autonomy of the Church, for without these she had neither the power to mould nor to strengthen her own constitution. No permanent means for spiritual edification were at the command of the people ; for bare oral trans lations were insufficient to satisfy the aspirations of their hearts. Such was the state of things which first incited the attention of the patriarch St. Sahak. Deeply versed in Greek and Syriac learning, he was held, according to his contem poraries, to be in advance of the scholars of his time.

St. Mesrop-Maschtotz, a former secretary of the king, and a disciple of the patriarch Nerses, conceived the plan of extirpating the last remnants of paganism in the province of Golthn (Akoulis). But, in the absence of an alphabet, he was con fronted with a difficulty, since he was unable to place in the hands of the people he would evan gelise any written instructions. In conjunction with the patriarch Sahak, he besought the king Vramschapouh to put an end to this state of affairs. This happened in 401, at the dawn of the fifth century ; and the king placed all avail-

ARMENIAN LITERATURE 23

able resources at their disposal. At length, in 404, Mesrop succeeded in compiling an alphabet which was excellently suited to the genius of the Armenian language. And as, in the furtherance of this work, he had invoked heavenly aid, he as cribed his success to divine grace. Indeed, the Ar menians themselves have always taken a pride in their literature, the origin of which was regarded by them as supernatural. As soon as St. Mesrop invented the alphabet at Balahovit (Palou), St. Sahak, on his part, continued indefatigably to carry on a work which was alike literary and holy. Accordingly, it is on the latter that the grateful Armenians have bestowed the title of Illuminator of Knowledge, on account of what he did for literature, just as St. Grigor enriched their souls by faith, and St. Nerses their hearts by the inculca tion of high morality.

The Armenian alphabet contained thirty-six characters, which were capable of representing all the sounds of the language. This number had to be increased later by two supplementary letters, which brought the total up to thirty-eight. Its ingenuity was so happily devised that it was even possible, without difficulty, to represent by the alphabet most of the sounds of foreign languages. But in this place we must confine our remarks to the importance of this innovation from the ecclesiastical standpoint.

The first work which was taken in hand was the translation of the Bible, and to this purpose were dedicated St. Sahak and St. Mesrop, together with a body of scholars selected from among the class of Translators. History places their number at one hundred, of whom sixty had been trained by Sahak and the rest by Mesrop. The Armenian translation of the Old Testament was made from the Greek text of the Septuagint, but with many

24 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

different readings in accordance with the Syriac translation. This work was begun in 404 and brought to an end in 433, after a final revision by St. Sahak, by comparison with a copy which was expressly sent by the patriarch of Constantinople. When this was accomplished, they employed themselves in the preparation of the books of the liturgy, such as the mass, the rituals of baptism, of confirmation, of ordination, of marriage, of the consecration of churches, and of funerals, the offices of the day, and the calendar. St. Sahakcontributed to this work, either directly, or indirectly with the help of his disciples. This organisation of the liturgy was inspired by that of St. Basil, that is to say, by the liturgy of the church of Caesarea. It will be admitted that nothing would be more natural than to imagine that the heads of the Armenian Church, as we have indicated above, should derive their teaching from the schools of Cappadocia.

But, while following closely the liturgy of Caesarea, there was no attempt at keeping to a slavish exactitude. St. Grigor had already bor rowed liberally from national customs and from pagan rites, which he had adapted into Christian rites. In the course of a century these practices had had time to become so deeply rooted as established customs, that it was impossible for new organisers to escape their influence. More over, they declined to comply wholly with the requirements of the Greek rite. What is pecu liarly the property of the Armenian liturgy are its hymns (scharakan), which are indeed of an original character, and which ring as an echo of the old national songs. They are analogous, too, in some respects with the Syriac hymns of St. Ephraim.

The distinctive character of this primitive

ARMENIAN LITERATURE 25

literature lies in the large number of translations of the works of the Greek Fathers. It is interest ing to notice in particular that certain of these works, the originals of which have been lost, have been preserved in these translations. Besides the translations from the Fathers, most of the philo sophical works of antiquity have also been thus preserved. Of original works there were but a few, such as books of ancient and contemporaneous history.

CHAPTER VII

THE ARMENIAN CHURCH IN THE FIFTH CENTURY

THE patriarchate of St. Sahak took up entirely the early third part of this century. Apart from the literary success, which has been previously noticed, this period has no distinguishing events worthy of mention, so that we are compelled to recognise the direct intervention of Providence in this particular success. It is this alone which gave the nation strength to battle against cer tain ruin, by bestowing on her the elements of a higher and independent existence at a time when both social and political circumstances were con spiring against her. The country of Armenia had been divided between the Greeks and the Per sians, when, in 387, at the desire of Khosrov (Chosroes), king of Persian Armenia, St. Sahak was elected to the patriarchate ; and at this time Arschak reigned in Greek Armenia. St. Sahak was obliged to act with judgment in order to be recognised and approved by both sides at the same time. A short time afterwards Greek Ar menia was handed over to the administration of Byzantine governors ; and Persian Armenia, after the relatively pacific reign of Vramschapouh, came under the rule, at first, of the Persian, Schapouh, and then of the Armenian, Artasches, who was young and of an unbridled temper. The Armenian satraps brought an accusation against their king before the Persian sovereign, and begged for his

36

IN THE FIFTH CENTURY 27

removal and the appointment of a Persian governor- general in his place. There was no difficulty in granting this petition, and the Persian satrap Vehmihrschapouh was at once nominated as governor-general of Persian Armenia (428). The Armenian satraps, by employing all manner of means, both by promises and threats, endeavoured to urge St. Sahak to unite with them in coming to an understanding ; but, being unable to attain their end, they accused the patriarch of plotting with the king against the Persian sovereign. As a result of this manoeuvre, St. Sahak was deposed and exiled into Persia, and an anti-patriarch was nominated in the person of Sourmak (428).

This change led to great disturbance in the affairs of Armenia. The administration of the patriarchal see came into the hands of anti- patriarchs, who diverted to their own use the revenues and the endowments of their office. They followed each other in quick succession : Sourmak (428), Birkischo (429), Schimuel (432), then Sourmak once more regained authority in 437. Through this period the bishops, the clergy, and the people refused to countenance the new state of affairs ; for, in the eyes of the nation, St. Sahak always remained their spiritual head. When he returned to Armenia (432), he withdrew to Blour (Yahnitepe), in the province of Bagrevand (Alasch- kert), where St. Mesrop and St. Ghevond had attended to religious and spiritual matters ; at no time had his flock been forsaken by him.

In spite of such a critical situation, he did not cease to take an active part in the affairs of the Universal Church. The Council of Ephesus (431) had been summoned to condemn the heresy of Nestorius. The decrees relating to the matter had been brought to St. Sahak from Constantinople by his disciples. But the books of Theodore of

28 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

Mopsueste, the precursor of Nestorius, had escaped the attention of the Council. Likewise the Nes- torians took advantage of this omission to cover up their errors in the name of Theodore. St. Sahak, intervening, summoned the Council of Aschtischat (435), and then criticised the errors of Theodore in a dogmatic letter which he wrote to Proclus at Constantinople. This letter served as the grounds for the Council of Constantinople in 553, in order to condemn the Three-Chapters.

The death of St. Sahak (439) was the prelude to a position which was even more painful. Sour- mak still occupied the patriarchal see as the head, recognised by the government, while St. Mesrop was continuing to administer spiritual matters ; but it was not long after that he followed St. Sahak to the grave (440). St. Hovsep (Joseph) of Hoghotzim was called as his successor in the management of spiritual affairs, and the inter vention of the Armenian Vassak Suni, governor- general, was successful, at the death of Sourmak (444), n causing him to be recognised as patriarch by the Persian government.

The king-of-kings, who had annexed Armenia to his dominions, was besought by the priests of the Zoroastrian religion to abolish Christianity in Armen:a, by compelling the people to adopt the worship of the sun and of fire. To gain his ends, the king set about, in the first place, to strip Armenia of her military forces, which he diverted for the purpose of waging war against the bar barians of the Caucasus. Having done this, he published (449) a decree by which he made the religion of Zoroaster obligatory upon all his sub jects without distinction. This was the beginning of an era of persecutions, in the course of which St. Atom Gnouni and St. Manadjihr Rischtouni with their followers suffered martyrdom. The

IN THE FIFTH CENTURY 29

episcopate, called together at Artaschat (450), proclaimed, in an apologetic letter, their inalien able fidelity to the faith. Notwithstanding this unanimous resistance, the chief of the Armenian satraps, to the number of ten, were summoned to Persia and compelled to renounce their religion. They were given the alternatives of either yielding or of quitting their country under instant exile. They made a pretence of abjuring their religion so as to be able to return to their homes and there organise resistance.

The priests of the religion of the sun and of fire, carrying their symbols, escorted in triumph the pretended renegades, but they were dispersed in the plains of Bagrevand by the armed populace, who were led by the arch-priest St. Ghevond. The interval of a year — from August, 450, to August, 451 — the term which had been granted for renouncing Christianity, had been turned to account by pre paring resistance to the troops, who were about to arrive in order to watch over the fulfilment of the royal decree. It is probable that if the Armenians had, in these circumstances, joined their forces, they would have been able with ease to get the better of the enemy's army. Unfortu nately a party of satraps, having come to an understanding with the governor Vassak, was definitely given over to the Persian cause. When, on the 26th of May, 451, at the battle of Avarair, sixty-six thousand Armenians, under the command of Vardan Mamikonian, encountered an army of two hundred and twenty thousand Persians, a large number of Armenians reinforced the enemy's ranks. Vardan and eight other generals, as well as one thousand and twenty-seven men, fell on the field of battle. The death of these martyrs is commemorated in the Armenian calendar on Shrove-Thursday.

30 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

Reckoning from this time, the Armenian Church entered upon an era of disorder which was caused, above all, by the external difficulties with which she was wholly engrossed. The patriarch, St. Hovsep, accused of having been instigator of the religious movement, was arrested, taken to Persia, and martyred with other members of the clergy (454), whose memories are celebrated under the name of SS. Ghevondian (Leontii). His successors were Melitus (452-456) and Movses (456-461) ; then came the celebrated Giit of Araheze (461-478), who was able to hold his own against the incessant efforts of the Persians to force their religion upon the nation. Once again the Armenians were obliged to take up arms under the leadership of Vahan Mamikonian, a nephew of St. Vardan. Hostilities were continued under the patriarch Hovhannes Mandakouni (478-490), who was the successor of Giit. This state of affairs threatened to be perpetual, when the new king Valarse, realising the uselessness of these efforts, at last put an end to them. He wisely proclaimed religious liberty, and nominated Vahan, first as military commandant (484), then as governor- general of Armenia (485), a step which ensured the civil and religious peace of Armenia. The venerable patriarch Hovhannes hastened to trans fer his see to the new capital, Douine, where it could be under the protection of government, and from that place he was able to devote all his attention to the internal reforms both of the Church and of the people. Thanks to the wisdom of his administration, he knew well how to repair the accumulated ruin caused by the wars of these latter years, and his name remains the most honoured after that of St. Sahak.

CHAPTER VIII

THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON

THE zeal displayed by the archimandrite Eutyches of Byzantium, in combating the errors of Nes- torius, had an effect quite contrary to that which its author had anticipated. His intervention gave rise to interminable controversies regarding the union of the two natures, or the double nature of Christ, and stirred up strife between the sees of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Rome. The school of Antioch, which was followed in this matter by the see of Constantinople, professed a teaching which maintained a certain separation between the divinity and the humanity of Jesus Christ, whereas the Alexandrine school affirmed a close union between the two natures, fearing that the mystery of the redemption would be prejudiced. In the third Oecumenical Council of Ephesus (431) the Alexandrine doctrine had triumphed, and the formula of St. Cyril of Alexandria, who recognised one nature united in the Incarnate Word, had become the emblem of Christianity. Nestorius, a disciple of the school of Antioch, proclaimed patriarch of Constantinople, who taught the existence of a purely moral unity between the two natures, had been condemned by the decision of the Council. The archimandrite Eutyches, an old septuagenarian, set forth (447) a teaching which carried the union so far as to make it a blend and a confusion of the two natures, involving the almost entire disappearance of the human nature,

31

32 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

and the giving of a heavenly origin to the body of Christ.

It is on this teaching that Flavian of Constanti nople condemned Eutyches and his doctrine in a special synod which was called at Constantinople (448). Dioscurus of Alexandria imagined that this decision meant the rejection of the doctrine of his school and of that of his predecessor and a return to Nestorianism. He accordingly assembled a new synod at Ephesus (449), where he succeeded in causing Flavian and the Nestorians to be con demned. In his turn, Leo I. of Rome, taking up the defence of Flavian, called together a special synod in Rome (450) against Eutyches and Dios curus. Afterwards, in order to give greater weight to his decision, he induced the emperor Marcian to summon a general Council at Chalcedon, where, thanks to coercive measures, he caused his doctrine and his letter to Flavian, called the Tome of Leo (451), to be accepted as decisive.

The bitterness that existed between the two parties is better understood if one considers that it was not only a theological problem such as the abstract question as to the two natures in Jesus Christ, but rather a pre-eminently concrete in terest, which was to be safeguarded, namely, the influence of the patriarchates. At the period of the Council of Nicaea, the Graeco-Roman world was divided between the three sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, and each acted within the sphere of its own jurisdiction, without claims to precedence. But a change in this condition came about at the beginning of the fifth century. Constantinople became converted into a patri archate by the Council which assembled in that city (381), and the ever-increasing decadence of Ancient Rome, and the growing influence of the New Rome, caused the patriarchs of Constant!-

THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 33

nople to imagine that they were superiors over the others. But the patriarch of Alexandria could not tolerate these ambitious designs. Im bued with the importance of the role he had played in the previous Councils, and still more of the brilliant qualities of his predecessors in office, such as Alexander, Athanasius, Theophilus, Cyril, and Dioscurus, he thought himself justified in assuming the right to prescribe Christian doctrine and to assert himself as arbiter in matters of dog matic truth. He maintained that the triumphs of Athanasius at Nicaea and of Cyril at Ephesus could not be impaired by the claims of Flavian and of Leo, whose proceedings were almost an insult directed against the see of Alexandria. Constantinople and Rome then combined to do battle against the common foe ; and the worldly arm of Marcian was raised to sanction the so-called success of Chalcedon against the see of Alexandria. But, in fact, the success was neither real nor substantial. The Council of Chalcedon, among others, had recognised the precedence of the see of Constantinople, but Rome refused her recog nition under the apprehension of some subtle attack being made on her in her turn ; and she laid down a distinction between canons of the same Council that were admissible and those that were inadmissible. The episcopate of the Graeco- Roman world was divided into two camps, and their flocks indulged in violent manifestations ; the scandal of having encouraged Nestorianism gained ground, and the subtle distinction which was laid down between the duality of persons and the duality of natures did not suffice to calm men's minds. The decrees of Chalcedon thus remained in abeyance ; they were not accepted by all. At a new Council held at Antioch (476) the doctrine was declared doubtful, and the emperor

34 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

Basiliscus forbade support being given to the decrees. The emperor Zeno issued the Henoticon (482), wherein he denied it all authority, basing his opinion on the Council of Ephesus of 431. Finally, the emperor Anastasius, by a new decree (491), impaired the importance of the Council of Chalcedon by depriving it of all authority. The object of all these measures was to combat Nestor- ianism, which, while relinquishing its hold on the Greek world, was finding shelter among the Syrian element, and was prospering under the liberty which was allowed to it by the king of Persia.

Armenia was not concerned with these quarrels until the beginning of the sixth century. The Councils which were summoned for and against Eutyches took place without her knowledge ; that of Chalcedon, which met on October 8th, 451, was not convened until after the great battle of Avarair (May 26th, 451). As we have said in a previous chapter, the country, at that time, was in great confusion ; the patriarch and the bishops were either in prison or in exile ; the satraps were persecuted or dispersed, the militia were dis banded, and the people terrorised. Under these circumstances, it can be well imagined that wranglings about dogmas failed to rouse the country's attention. Melitus and Movses, who succeeded St. Hovsep, were scarcely in a position to attend to such matters. The patriarchs Giit and Hovhannes, though renowned for their learn ing and their abilities, again became the victims of religious persecutions. And when, later, quiet was restored, Hovhannes had scarcely the neces sary time at his disposal to collect his thoughts and to put in order the affairs of his own jurisdiction. Jt is, therefore, no matter of surprise if the Council of Chalcedon, forty years after its assembly, had as yet stirred up no lively interest in Armenia.

THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 35

The first rumours of it came from the direction of Persia, when Babken of Othmous was patriarch (490-515). The Nestorians had established them selves in Persian Mesopotamia. As the Syrians, who had remained faithful to the orthodox doctrine of the Council of Ephesus, suffered much under their domination, they begged for proper guidance from the Armenian Church. The Armenians had remained scrupulously faithful to the anti-Nes- torian principles of St. Sahak, and could not acquiesce in any compromise regarding doctrine. The Nestorians, who prided themselves on the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, which had been convened by the Church of Constantinople, were hostile to the Church of Alexandria ; whereas the Armenians had remained attached to the latter from the beginning. Further, this Council was the handiwork of Marcian, who had rebuffed the Armenian deputation, which had come to ask his aid against the Persian persecution. Beyond this, the Council of Marcian had been disavowed by his successors ; and by the decrees of Basiliscus, of Zeno, and of Anastasius the Chalcedonian pro fession of faith had been officially set aside. Under these circumstances we can readily con jecture what would be the attitude of the Ar menians. The synod of Armenian, Georgian, and Caspio-Albanian bishops, which assembled at Douine (506) under the presidency of Babken, officially proclaimed the profession of faith of the Council of Ephesus, and rejected everything that was Nestorian or savoured of Nestorianism, in cluding the acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Far, indeed, from adopting the doctrine of Eutyches, his name, together with those of Arius, of Macedon, and of Nestorius, was officially con demned. Such was the first declaration of the Armenian Church with regard to the Council of

36 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

Chalcedon. Later, the Greek and Latin Churches revoked their opposition and recognised it as the fourth Oecumenic Council. The Armenian Church would have nothing to do with this transaction, which was prompted by designs which had no bearing on theology. She remained firm in her original resolve, and ever maintained an attitude of ultra- conservatism. She set herself to resist every new dogmatic utterance said to emanate from revelation, as well as every innovation which could in any way pervert the primitive faith. She could not be unconscious of the fact that the chief moving power of the Chalcedonian question was the mutual jealousy of the patriarchates of the Graeco-Roman world, a question which could have no concern for her. Neither did she mean to submit to the whim of the patriarchate of Constantinople, which had applied itself at Chalce don towards the usurpation both of precedence and of superiority over other sees, by strengthen ing the basis of her plans through the instrumen tality of secular power.

The profession of faith which was decreed at Douine (506) was the chief event of the patri archate of Babken. The selfsame principle was jealously guarded by his successors : Samuel of Ardzke (516-526), Mousche of Ailaberk (526-534), Sahakll. of Ouhki (534-539), Kristapor of Tiraritch (539-545), and Ghevond of Erast (545-548). Beyond these facts there was nothing of special significance to notice during this period of about forty years. The decision that had been arrived at concerning the Council of Chalcedon was con firmed under the patriarchate of Nerses II. of Bagrevand (548-557), at the synod of Douine (554), at which the faith, as decreed at Ephesus, was emphatically proclaimed in opposition to Nestorian errors and Chalcedonian claims.

CHAPTER IX

A SUCCESSION OF QUARRELS

THE history of the Armenian Church presents a series of religious questions which, however, did not disturb her normal condition, though they recurred continuously through the course of many centuries. We have not the least desire to enter into the details of these quarrels, which are not likely to interest readers who are not of her flock. It will suffice to say that their cause lay in the political influence of the states which held sway over Armenia, or of those which were in close contact with her. This country, having lost her independence, passed successively under Persian, Greek, and Saracen domination, whose political tendencies drew their inspiration from the religious profession of their country. The Armenians could hardly escape the influence of such tactics. On the one hand, not wishing to depart from their dog matic principles which had been established by decree of the synod of 506, and, on the other hand, by trying to preserve the sympathies and advantages which would accrue to them through the political influence of the dominant states, they pursued the policy of not offending the amour propre of any, and of showing proofs of compliance, without placing themselves in opposition to their own principles.

Armenia was often divided between different states, but her fate lay in the power of the one which possessed the larger portion of the country. The Persian rule, which was in the hands of satraps nominated by the king-of-kings, played a pre- 37

38 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

ponderant role in the country for a period of two- complete centuries (428-633). After this period the curopalates, who were nominated by the Byzantine emperors, took the place of the satraps. The Greek domination was of but short dura tion, lasting about sixty years (633-693) ; for the Saracens firmly established their power very soon in the country. The representatives of the caliphs exercised a direct administration in Armenia, which lasted more than a century and a half (693-862). But this was by no means a period of entirely easy conquest. The rivalries and wars which brought to loggerheads the dif ferent states, always had this country for their battle-ground. The Armenians, having to grapple with opposing influences, were swayed by a wavering policy, but they were anxious neither to compromise their political interests nor those of their faith. The influence of the Greek empire, which was always preponderant in the matter of religion, even when it had not the civil power behind it, used pressure on the Armenians to accept the Chalcedonian faith ; and, in order to induce them to renounce their attitude in that matter, promises towards an amelioration of their political condition were showered on them. The Persians and the Saracens dazzled their eyes with analogous promises, on condition that they would estrange themselves from the Greeks. The Armenians were neither allowed nor were they willing to accede to the suggestions of the Greeks that they should accept the profession of the Chalcedonian faith ; on the other hand, they had no desire to rouse Greek enmity to a higher pitch ; and yet on stronger grounds they shrank from throwing themselves into the hands of non- Christian powers. Such a position of difficulty and such a spirit of indecision were the special

A SUCCESSION OF QUARRELS 39

characteristics in the history of the Armenian Church from the sixth to the ninth centuries, a period which we will endeavour briefly to sketch by recalling its most salient features.

The relations with the Christians of Persia, the first evidences of which we have noticed at the time of Babken, are characterised by their constant appeals to the Armenian partiarchate. They em ployed these means to protect themselves against the encroachments of the Nestorians, who, by reason of their anti-Greek spirit, had been able to win over the Persian court. The patriarch Kristapor of Tiraritch, among others, not only contented himself by defending the anti-Nestorian before the Persian king-of-kings, but he conse crated their bishops and gave his full attention to the administration of their Church.

The history of the second Council of Constanti nople, which the Greeks and the Latins regard as the fifth Occumenic Council, is \vell known. The excitement occasioned by the Council of Chalcedon was not yet allayed at the period when Justinian mounted the throne (527). As his efforts to restore peace remained ineffectual, he attempted to bring under condemnation the Three-Chapters, that is to say, the writings of Diodorus of Tarsus, of Theodore of Mopsueste, and of Ibas of Edessa, which were devoted to the views of Nestorius, but opposed to the decrees enacted at Ephesus ; this was also a step in keeping with the Chalcedonian profession. Justinian thought he would, in this way, give satisfaction to the orthodox followers of the Ephesian doctrine and restrain at the same time the tendencies of the Chalcedonian party. The decree for the assembly of the new Council was published (546), but the popes of Rome continued to raise difficulties, fearing lest the indirect condemnation of the Tome of Leo should impair

40 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

their prestige. The pope Agapet, who was sum moned to Constantinople, died there before a solution was reached. Vigilius, who was nominated by the emperor under the condition that he pro claimed the condemnation of the Three-Chapters, was not recognised by the Romans, who put up Silverus in opposition to him ; but the death of the latter put an end to opposition, and Vigilius was recognised. The Council finally opened (553), and it was with his concurrence that the Three- Chapters were condemned. Thus the Graeco- Roman world, by indirect means, put an end to the Chalcedonian question, thereby emphasising the idea of the unity of the two natures in Christ, which was defined at the Council of Ephesus.

The Armenians, who remained faithful to that Council, in spite of the shufflings of the Chalce- donians, did not feel the need of new definitions ; they also refused to attach any importance to the decrees of the Chalcedonians, even though these were not only in conformity with their own principles, but were founded on the authority of the patriarch St. Sahak, whose letter to Proclus was solemnly read at the Council, immediately after the perusal of the decretal epistles of St. Cyril of Alexandria. The patriarch Nerses II. of Bagrevand contented himself, at the synod of Douine which assembled in the following year (554)' by proclaiming the Ephesian doctrines in opposition to the Chalcedonian claims.

The instigations of the Greeks, though powerless against Armenian opinion, received a favourable reception among the Georgians. Their patriarch, Kurion, though trained and raised to office under the Armenian patriarchate, conceived the idea of seceding from that see, and of rallying to the patriarchate of Constantinople in order to win the imperial favour. Adhesion to the decrees of

A SUCCESSION OF QUARRELS 41

Chalcedon was the condition of such a submission. The efforts of Vertanes, who was directing the Armenian patriarchate after the death of the patriarch Movses II. of Eghivart (574-604), and those of the new patriarch Abraham of Aghbatank (607-615), were powerless to prevent the secession, and the Georgian Church, with Kurion at her head, definitely accepted the Chalcedonian faith, and became part of the Greek Church. The synod of Douine (609) ratified this secession from the orthodox Armenian Church ; but this event was destined, in course of time, to have unpleasant consequences for the Georgian Church. For, under the Russian domination in the Caucasus, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, her national existence had no longer any raison d'etre, in face of the common identity of principles, which thus gave justification for the" absorption of the Georgian Church by the Russian. To-day everything in Georgia is Russian- ised : hierarchy and clergy, liturgy and language ; the exarch himself and the bishops of Georgia are recruited from among the Russian clergy.

We must not pass by in silence the last attempt made by the Greeks to gain the Armenians over to their cause. As a portion of Armenia had fallen under Byzantine domination, Constantinople hastened to instal therein a patriarch devoted to her own interests (590), and during the lifetime of Movses II. This was Hovhannes of Bagaran. But this new attempt proved futile ; for the anti- patriarchal see came to an end with Hovhannes himself, who fell into the hands of thePersians (6n). The Greeks judged it unnecessary to appoint a successor to him ; they were even less encouraged to do so, as the Armenians, who themselves lived under Greek domination, refused recognition to the usurping patriarch, as well as to the profession of the Chalcedonian faith which he represented.

CHAPTER X

A RETURN TO THE QUARRELS

IN 614 Persia had invaded the Greek empire and had carried away from Jerusalem the relic of the Holy Cross ; in fact, the Persian army had even encamped under the very walls of Constantinople.

It was only later that the emperor Heraclius, awakening out of his lethargy, engaged in a struggle which was crowned with success (623) ; and the vanquished Persians were obliged to restore the precious relic to the Holy City. The Armenian troops, led by Megege Gnouni, were largely responsible for the success of the campaign. It was at the close of these auspicious events that Heraclius conceived the plan of effecting the union of the Greeks and the Armenians in their dogmatic faith. To attain this end, he tried to impose on the latter the decrees of Chalcedon which the Greek Church had recognised after the condemnation of the Three-Chapters. Engrossed with this project, he went a second time to Armenia to open negotiations. The patriarchal see was at that time occupied by Yezr (Esdras) of Parajena- kert, who was the successor of Abraham of Aghbatank, of Comitas of Aghtzik (615-628), and of Kristapor II. Apahouni (628-630).

The vacillations of Yezr and of his bishops, and the conferences between the Greeks and Armen ians, terminated by the acceptance of a formula of faith which was imposed by the emperor.

42

A RETURN TO THE QUARRELS 43.

That formula was entirely in keeping with the profession of faith of the Armenians, excepting that it passed over in silence the Council of Chalcedon. It was approved at a special synod, held at Karine (Erzeroum), and was solemnly dedicated by the celebration of a mass (632), at which the Greeks and Armenians communicated together. Meanwhile the submission of the patriarch to the will of the emperor had incensed the Armenian episcopate and people. Intense rancour vented its fury against Yezr ; but, do what they might, they were unable to compass his deposition. However, the sentiment of indignation, which his conduct excited, has survived through the ages to such an extent that his name still figures on the list of patriarchs with the initial inverted. Yet, for justice' sake, it must be added that Yezr could hardly have been more Chalce- donian in his tendencies than Heraclius, who was the defender of the monothelite doctrine and pro tector of the patriarch Sergius, the author of that doctrine. Monothelitism was a revival, under a different guise, of the monophysite doctrine of the Council of Ephesus, which the Armenians had upheld with great tenacity. It being impossible to return to the question of the Council of Chalcedon, assent to which had been accorded by the Council °f 553> the monothelites endeavoured to divert its effects, either by the condemnation of the Three-Chapters, or by upholding the union of the wills in Christ in place of the union of the natures. We will pause for a moment to note the zeal displayed in the course of his administration by the patriarch, Nerses III. of Ischkhan, surnamed Schinogh (the Builder). This old soldier had mounted the patriarchal throne when the Saracens were first beginning to enter on their invasion (641). Armenia, in her perplexity, knew not

44 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

whether to declare for her former rulers or for the new invaders. Nerses himself was in favour -of Greek rule, but, besides that the Greeks were feeble and inactive, the military commanders of the nation, Sembat Bagratouni and Theodore Rischtouni, found themselves compelled to make submission to the Saracens. The emperor Con- stantine IV. was eager to wreak his vengeance on the Armenians for their default, and, at the head •of his army, he attempted once more to make them submit to his religious authority. The patriarch Nerses III. succeeded in pacifying the emperor ; but after the withdrawal of the Greeks a new synod, convened at Douine (645), em phatically proclaimed the resolve to subscribe only to the first three Councils, and to reject all that had been afterwards added to them. But the political question brought the patriarch Nerses and the great satrap Theodore, who was always on the stronger side, into opposition. The patriarch, therefore, kept out of public affairs until the death of Theodore, which took place six years later. Then only did Nerses begin again to coquet with the Greek influences, but always in a feeble and vacillating manner.

This condition of affairs continued after the death of Nerses (661), who was succeeded by Anastasius of Akori (661-667), Israel of Othmous (667-677), and Sahak III. of Tzorapor (677-703). During the patriarchate of the latter, Saracen rule was definitively established in Armenia, and thereby the Graeco-Armenian disputes lost their importance. Moreover, the caliphs had an interest in seeing the Armenians regulate their own religious affairs in a spirit which was opposed to Greek ideas. The patriarch Sahak III. had under taken a journey to Damascus to pay a visit to the caliph, when he died on the road. Never-

A RETURN TO THE QUARRELS 45

theless, his attempt was not without its result, for the caliph granted the greater part of the religious privileges for which he was on his way to sue.

The most salient feature of the patriarchate of his successor, Eghia (Elias) of Ardjesch (703-71 7) r was the zeal he displayed to retain Caspian Albania in the communion of the Armenian Church. Their patriarch, Nerses Bakour, tempted by the example of Kurion, inclined to the side of communion with the Greek Church. He was immediately removed and replaced by Simeon. Eghia also gave proofs of his strength against some Armenian theologians, educated in the schools of Constantinople, who attempted to defend the decrees of Chalcedon.

The patriarch Hovhannes III. of Otzoun, sur- named Imastasser (the Philosopher), a cultured mind, who was scholar and diplomat in one, was the most prominent figure of the period. His writings against the heresies, his disciplinary and liturgical reforms, give evidences of a profound erudition. He is the author of a collection of ecclesiastical canons and of canonical letters which form a code of canon-law. It should be noticed that these are of anterior date to the pseudo- Isidorian decretals of the Roman Church. His relations with the caliphs, the privileges, such as the concessions which he obtained from them for the benefit of the Church and of the nation, do honour to his administrative qualities. In con nection with his religious duties, he succeeded in deciding the great question of the corruptibility of the body of Christ, which had been raised by the orthodox monophysites. It had given birth to the sects of the Julianists and of the Severians, and caused a split between the Syrian and Ar menian Churches. The synod of Manazkert, con-

46 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

vened (726) under the presidency of Hovhannes, and composed of Armenian and Syrian bishops, adopted ten canons whereby they endeavoured to eliminate the exaggerations of the two sects. The sound doctrine concerning the origin and the natural character of the body of Christ was ap proved at this Council, which placed on a solid basis the veneration due to the body of the Word Incarnate, as neither subject to sin nor destined to decay. Hovhannes ended his days in honour (728), and his memory has been hallowed by the Armenian Church.

There is little to be said about the period (728-755) which followed, during which twelve patriarchs succeeded each other under the peaceful conditions created for the Armenian Church by the caliphs. It need merely be mentioned that since these caliphs had endowed Armenia with vassal principalities (862), and the Armenians had begun to enjoy administrative autonomy, the patriarch Photius of Constantinople attempted once again to establish relations with the Ar menian Church. He sought in this reconciliation a basis which would prove of some use to him in his quarrels with the Roman Church. Hence, he wrote letters to the patriarch Zakaria of Tzak (855-878), and to prince Aschot Bagratouni, inviting them to accept the decrees of Chalcedon ; but the decisive answers he received from the patriarch left him no loophole in the controversy, and so the attempt of Photius led to no result.

CHAPTER XI

PEREGRINATIONS OF PATRIARCHS

THE Armenian patriarchate has never derived its designation from any fixed place of residence ; it has always been called " The Patriarchate of All the Armenians " (Amenain Haiotz). On the strength of this title it has always been able to set itself up in that central spot in the nation where happened at the time to be the political pivot of authority in the land. Etchmiadzin, the original residence, contemporaneous with the pro clamation of Christianity as the official religion, remained identical with the capital, Vagharschapat, only till the beginning of the fourth century. After the disappearance of the kingdom, and the turmoils which followed that event, an Armenian satrap, and, at the same time, the patriarch Hovhannes I., Mandakouni (484), were installed quietly at Douine. There, at the foot of Mount Ararat, not far from Etchmiadzin, the patriarchs took up their abode until the time of Hovhannes V. of Draskhonakert (899-931).

The political concessions granted by the caliphs to the Armenians were found to be far from bene ficial to the nation. For, under their sanction, principalities increased in number, and their chiefs usurped the title of kings of Ani, of Van, of Kars, of Gougark ; a proceeding which gave rise to all kinds of disorders and rivalries. Furthermore, the creation of so many principalities in nowise pre- 47

48 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

eluded the permanent presence among them of Saracen high commissioners, who collected the tribute and kept an eye over the administration of these kings, over whom they exercised the power of life and death. It is needless to enter into a detailed account of the grievous conse quences which resulted from so abnormal a position.

The town of Douine, which was the residence of the Bagratidae kings before they transferred their seat to Ani, remained the patriarchal see until it was invaded and sacked by the commissioner Youssouf. The patriarch Hovhannes V., who had gone under a truce to negotiate with him, was detained as a hostage. When, on payment of a ransom, he obtained his liberty, he had for a long time to wander about the country without being able to get back to his seat, which in fact no longer existed, for the town had been com pletely sacked and destroyed. It was only to wards the end of his patriarchate that he decided to set up his headquarters at Van. He resided at first at the monastery of Tzorovank (Salnapat), situated near that town ; afterwards he followed the king to the island of Aghthamar, which thus became the patriarchal seat. It was here that this patriarch, who was surnamed Patmaban (the Historian), ended his days (931), after having, for thirty-two years, been a witness to a series of most troublous events.

Three of his successors, Stepanos II. (931-932), Theodores I. (932-938), and Yeghische I. (938- 943), resided at Aghthamar, near the kings of Van. But Anania of Moks (943-967) found it more convenient to leave the solitude of the island, and to establish himself in the heart of the country, under the protection of the kings of Ani. He settled provisionally in the little town of Arkina,

PEREGRINATIONS OF PATRIARCHS 49

near to Ani, until a palace and a cathedral church were subsequently built in the capital itself (992). Anania left his mark on the religious and political affairs of the country, and by his intelligent administration assisted in securing to the Church a period of relative calm. Vahan Suni, who succeeded him (967-969), came under suspicion of attempting to adopt various Greek ceremonies and of showing a predilection for Chalcedonian principles. The Armenian episcopate, roused by his action, called together a synod at Ani, deposed Vahan, and appointed in his stead Stepanos III. of Sevan (969-971). Stepanos was supported by the king of Ani, while the king of Van took the side of Vahan, and the dispute brought about disorders which convulsed the country, until the deaths both of Stepanos and of Vahan . Khatchik I . Arscharouni (971-992), a man of ability and action, was elected by common consent. He suc ceeded not only in restoring peace between the various Armenian principalities, but he success fully safeguarded his co-religionists of the Byzan tine provinces, who were being incited to enter the pale of the Greek Church. It was Khatchik who first consecrated Armenian bishops for those of his co-religionists who dwelt in Greek dio ceses. Until then there had been, in accordance with ancient custom, only one bishop in each diocese. It dates, in fact, from this period that bishops, following the rites and the professions of faith of individual Churches, began to increase in number. Khatchik, after the cathedral church and the patriarchal palace at Arkina had been built, undertook the construction of a new resi dence at Ani, but he did not live to enjoy it. It was inaugurated by his successor, Sarkis I. of Sevan (992-1019) ; but it was not long inhabited, as his successor, Petros I. Guetadartz (1019-1054),

50 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

abandoned it in consequence of the capture of Ani by the Greeks (1046).

The most striking event which happened under the rule of these two patriarchs was the action taken against the sect of Thondracians, a species of Paulicians, who were hostile to all outward form of worship, and were characterised by extreme fanaticism and audacity. Hacob, bishop of Hark, took their side, and undertook to govern the Church according to the principles of the sect, without, however, openly coming to a rupture with the orthodox profession. Hacob was twice summoned to appear before an episcopal synod, and was able to clear himself. But positive proofs of his doings happened to come to light, and he was condemned and degraded by the patriarch Sarkis. At Kaschi a crowd associated with this sect had destroyed the great cross of the village of Khatchguhe. The authors of this sacrilege were sought out, arrested, and punished with special severity ; bodily punishments were resorted to, which are, in truth, not a common practice in the Armenian Church. But, in circumstances such as these, it was considered advisable to follow the example of the Greeks, who had made a special point of meting out the utmost severity against the Paulicians, whose daring actions had, indeed, degenerated into crimes against the welfare of the community.

The capture of Ani and the dispersion of the Bagratidae dynasty are connected with the memory of the patriarch Petros. The latter, a nephew of the patriarch Khatchik, had been nominated in the lifetime of Sarkis, who had voluntarily abdicated (1019). He died a short time after (1022). The king Gaguik of Ani, who died in 1020, was succeeded by his eldest son Hovhannes-Sembat, who, weak-minded and slug-

PEREGRINATIONS OF PATRIARCHS 51

gish, conceived the idea of strengthening his rule by negotiating with the emperor Basil II. for the surrender of his kingdom after his death. The patriarch Petros himself proceeded to Trebizond (1022) to ratify this agreement with the emperor. On his return he settled at Sebaste (1023), where Senekerim, who had taken in exchange from the Greeks the province of Sebaste for his own terri tory of Van, was at that time reigning. From this town he went over to Tzorovank in Van (1029). On his return to Ani (1036) he was deposed by the king and superseded by Dioskoros of Sanahine ; but the opposition of both clergy and people com bined to drive Dioskoros out in the following year (1037), and Petros regained possession of his see, which he retained for some ten years longer. The king Hovhannes-Sembat died (1042) without leaving direct issue, and the succession fell to Gaguik, son of his brother Aschot, a child of fifteen ; but an attempt was made to deprive him of his rights. Petros was cognisant of the agree ment of Trebizond, the treaty concerning which was held by the emperor Michel IV., the Paph- lagonian. West-Sarkis, the chief minister of the deceased king, sought to turn the succession to his own advantage ; Vahram Pahlavouni, who was in command of the army, was on the side of right and of national independence. The Greeks, the Tartars, and the king of Gougark disputed among themselves for the possession of Ani. Vahram succeeded time after time in repelling the assaults of the enemies, and so for many years he resisted their forces and the intrigues of Petros and of Sarkis ; but in the end he was compelled to yield, and the town capitulated to the Greeks (1046). The patriarch was at first the object of all manner of attention and of honours at the hands of the Greeks, who took him afterwards to Constanti-

52 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

nople, where he remained for three years. He was finally sent to Sebaste, where he ended his days (1054), in the exercise of his official functions, though his nephew Khatchik was associated with him in the capacity of coadjutor. The latter administered the patriarchate during the absences of Petros, and succeeded him at his death.

Khatchik II. of Ani was also summoned to Constantinople, where he was subjected to all manner of ordeals, not only to make him reveal the treasures of Petros, but also to convert him to the profession of faith of the Greek Church. But his steadfastness could not be shaken in spite of the sufferings he endured. At the end of three years (1054-1057) he was banished to Thavblour, near Tarantia (Darende) in Asia Minor, where he remained till he died (1060).

CHAPTER XII

THE PATRIARCHAL SEAT IN CILICIA

THE Greeks, being masters of the country, en deavoured to prevent the election of a new patriarch, with the object of facilitating the sub mission of the Armenians to an acknowledgment of the Greek Church. But the futility of their manoeuvres, the complaints called forth by their conduct, and the attitude of Gaguik, king of Kars, who had exchanged his kingdom for the district of Amasia, finally induced the emperor Constantine Ducas to sanction (1065) the nomina tion of Grigor-Vahram, son of Grigor the Maguis- trus, governor-general in the imperial service. The son had also filled the same office. A condition attached to this nomination was that the new patriarch, Grigor II. Vikaiasser (the Martyrophile), should not have his seat in Armenia. He was obliged, in consequence, to take up his residence at Zamintia, in the new state of king Gaguik of Kars.

His patriarchate extended over forty years (1065-1105). He was endowed with both learning and ability, but his administration was not marked by any conspicuous act ; by reason, no doubt, of the dislike which he invariably showed for his office. It might, indeed, be held that he only accepted it in order to put an end to the vacancy in the patriarchal see, and not for the purpose of performing its duties.

53

54 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

He divided his attention between literary studies and pilgrimages to Palestine and Egypt, handing over all the cares of administration to vicars, whom he associated with himself as coad jutors, and on whom he conferred full powers. Among the latter, Guevorg III. (George) of Lori (1069-1072), who was found incompetent for his duties, was deposed ; but Barsegh I. (Basil) of Ani, a nephew of Grigorll., proved an active and wise delegate, taking upon himself all the responsi bilities and power of the office (1085), until the death of his uncle, whom he succeeded without op position (1105). The patriarchal residence during this period was supposed to be fixed at Zamintia, near Amasia, but the stay of the patriarch and of his coadjutors there was only provisional. Barsegh resided sometimes at Ani, sometimes in Cilicia and Comagene, where the Armenians had begun to emigrate, in their flight from the in cursions of the Tartars.

The monastery of Schoughr, the centre of monastic life, which had begun to blossom in the mountains of Seav-Ler (Amanus), was chosen as the usual place of residence, because it was situated in the territory of the Armenian prin cipality of Cilicia. This principality had been founded by Rouben, a descendant of the kings of Ani, and by his son Constantine (1095-1110). This prince was succeeded by Thoros, who was powerfully supported by Barsegh in his endeavour to invest his principality with a political structure and a much wider sphere of action. Barsegh died accidentally from the effects of a fall from a roof (1113). He was succeeded by the young Grigor III. Pahlavouni, who was but twenty years of age ; but his candidature had been recommended by Grigor II., because of the brilliant evidences of capacity he had shown.

PATRIARCHAL SEAT IN CILICIA 55

The inactive administration of Grigor II. had led to antipatriarchs being proclaimed in the persons of Sarkis of Honi, Theodores Alakhossik, and Poghos of Varak. They were, nevertheless, compelled to give way before the activity of Barsegh I. The youth of Grigor III. served the archbishop David Thornikian of Aghthamar with the pretext to get himself proclaimed patri arch. Since the see had been transferred from Aghthamar to Arkina, under Anania of Moks, the archbishops of Aghthamar had set up exceptional claims, which, however, it had become customary to tolerate. David Thornikian, who was gifted with a superabundance of energy, sought to substantiate these pretensions, and, taking advan tage of the youth of Grigor III. and declaring his enthronement illegal, he usurped the supreme power (1114). A special assembly, composed of two thousand five hundred ecclesiastics, and assisted by the Cilician princes, condemned David ; but, in spite of this decision, the antipatriarchs of Aghthamar have retained their see up to the present day, through reconciliation with the mother Church.

The patriarchal seat, till then so uncertain as to its locality, happened to be still at Seav-Ler, when Grigor III. assumed power (1113). Twelve years later he settled at the castle of Dzovk (Dulouk), which belonged to his family, and where he resided for twenty-two years (1125-1147). But, being anxious to obtain a more suitable residence, he succeeded in acquiring the castle of Rhomkla (Roumkale), which was made over to him at a price by the son of count Josselin, the lord of Germanicia (Marache). For a century and a half (1147-1293), and up to the time of the capture of the castle by the Egyptians, the Armenian patriarchs made this their place of

56 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

residence. Afterwards they settled at Sis, the capital of the kingdom of Cilicia, which remained the seat of the see for yet another century and a half (1293-1441). Then the patriarchal seat reverted once more to Etchmiadzin. The entire duration of the peregrinations, commencing with the departure from Douine until the return to the original see, covered a period of 540 years (901-1441).

CHAPTER XIII

ATTEMPTS TOWARDS UNION

THE persistent tendencies towards unity on the part of the Armenian Church, and her apparently paradoxical conduct, might with good reason create a feeling of surprise, if we did not bear in mind her essentially tolerant spirit. This Church has in all good faith always welcomed every pro position which has been made in the direction of unity ; she has, on the other hand, never departed from her attitude of independence. The Churches with which she might have come into agreement were the Greek, the Syrian, and the Latin. The Greek Church, which was the most powerful and the most extensive, occupied incontestably a position of superiority, which was due partly to the prestige in which Hellenism was held in the ancient world, and above all on account of the political power of the Empire of the East. At all times her aim has been to exert a dominant role over the Armenian Church. She has set to work to bring the latter under subjection ; even to annex her, if that had been within her power. What little mention has been already made about the successive disputes with regard to the Council of Chalcedon has been sufficient to enlighten the reader on this matter. The Armenians have never demurred to any overture ; but at the same time they have never definitively given their adherence to any positive proposal.

57

58 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

The Syrian Church occupied a weaker position, and it was easy to keep in agreement with her. If, on the one hand, the Syrians were not in a position to advance exaggerated claims, on the other hand, the Armenians never pushed their requirements too far.

The Latin Church, on account of her remote ness, came first into touch with the Armenian Church at the time of the Crusades.

The Armenian Church has always understood the meaning of union in the true and strict sense of the term. She has desired to see its establish ment on the basis of a spiritual communion between the Churches, of mutual respect for their several positions, of liberty for each within the limits of her own sphere, and of the spirit of Christian charity overruling all. She has never tolerated that union should take the guise of domination, nor be mistaken for proselytism. Unfortunately, the Greek and Latin Churches, on the strength of their political and social status, have always been disposed to imagine that it was only possible to realise the union of the Churches by bringing them under thraldom. To be more precise in our remarks, we would add that the spirit of domination holds the first place among the Latins, and that of proselytism among the Greeks. The Armenian has never rejected over tures which either the one or the other has made, though too often he has been disappointed in his hopes. Without being disheartened, he has repeated his endeavours at reconciliation, even while he has despaired of looking for good results.

We are unable to gainsay those who would see interested motives in this attitude of the Ar menians, rather than the expression of a Christian spirit. An examination of their political and social position, which has never been either strong

ATTEMPTS TOWARDS UNION 59

or independent, would be sufficient justification for their interested point of view. Confined within inland provinces, at the mercy of inroads from the east and from the west, from south and north, weak as far as numbers are concerned, destitute of material and intellectual resources, they have always sought protection at the hands of other Christian communions. But, while having the desire for union, they have never resigned themselves to yield to the religious domination of others, nor to submit to their proselytising tendencies. This is the reason that they have remained aloof, and in a state of detachment within their own tradition. In the principles of union they could see the welfare of their interests, both social and civil, but for these they have had no desire to sacrifice their religious and Christian standpoint.

These efforts towards union have no novelty about them. They have been punctiliously main tained towards the Greeks, without any practical result being brought about ; and the Armenian Church has stood firm in her independent attitude, even despite the fact that her vassal dynasties have disappeared one after the other under the blows of Tartar invaders

It was due to this circumstance that the Armenians seized the opportunity of emigrating en masse ; and that has been the main cause of the ruin of the Armenian fatherland. One party, taking the northern route, crossed the Caucasus and the Euxine, and went to settle in Georgia, the Crimea, Poland, Moldavia, Wallachia, and Hungary. We must not follow their footsteps. Another party took the southern route, and settled successively in Comagene, in Cicilia, in Syria, and in Caramania, where they succeeded in founding, first a principality, and then an

60 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

Armenian kingdom, which finally transformed those countries into a small Armenia. It is well known that nothing but the force of circumstances induced the Armenians, when driven by the in vasions from the east, to turn their eyes towards the Christian forces of the west. Documents prove a series of uninterrupted negotiations and overtures towards unity which were conducted, both with the Greeks and the Latins, during the entire period of the Roubenian dynasty in Cilicia (1080-1375). Those who choose to see in these negotiations with the Latins a complete adher ence to Roman Catholicism must not forget that negotiations towards unity were at the same time being carried on with the Greeks, and that, since the days of Photius, these latter had broken away from the Latins. The Armenians, therefore, could not have indulged in two negotiations, if they had given their adherence to one of the two Churches, and were also, at the same time, maintaining a position of independence.

The earliest attempts towards union began in the time of Grigor II., who, in the course of his journeys, undertaken with the object of investi gating the deeds of the martyrs, tried to bring about an understanding with the Churches of Constantinople, of Alexandria, and of Jerusalem. It has, indeed, been stated in good part that for the sake of a single document he made a journey to Rome with this end in view, but it has been ascertained that this statement is due to an obvious confusion between Rome and Roum — the city of the Romans and the city of the Romeens. However this may be, nothing was officially decided during the patriarchate of Grigor II., in spite of the very intimate terms on which he stood with the Greeks. He succeeded only in bringing to an end the reign of oppression which

ATTEMPTS TOWARDS UNION 61

had been inaugurated by the emperors during the partriarchates of Petros I. and of Kahtchik II.

During the reign of Levon I. (1123-1137), Greeks and Armenians came to blows, in conse quence of some Greek towns being occupied by Levon. The hostilities resulted in the Armenian prince being taken into captivity, and in the occupation of the country, which lasted until Thoros II., the son of Levon, ascended the throne in succession to his father (1144).

After these hostilities, intercourse between the principality of Cilicia and the Latin principalities was brought about by the Crusades. The patri arch Grigor III. and his brother, the bishop Nerses, were invited to the Latin Council of Antioch (1141), which was assembled to consider the case of the bishop Rudolph, being presided over by cardinal Alberic, the papal legate. The latter invited the patriarch Grigor III. to accom pany him to the Holy Places, where he even gave him a place of honour in the Council of Jerusalem (1143). It was under these circumstances that the legate urged on him to sanction his union with the Roman Church. But he was clever enough to decline adroitly the proposition, de claring that the two Churches were not separated by any essentials.

It was not deemed opportune to carry the discussion further, for the Armenians and the Latins mutually counted on each other's support. The pope Lucius II. (1143-1144) hastened to send gifts of an ecclesiastical character to Grigor III. The latter, not wishing to be outrivalled in generosity, sent a delegation to meet the pope Eugene III. at Viterbo (1145-1153). Under such circumstances, the dispute broke out afresh in connection with the doctrinal and ceremonial dif ferences between the two Churches. Eugene III.

62 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

wrote on the subject to Grigor III., calling upon him to comply with the practices of the Roman Church. It was thus that the first phase in the negotiations with the Latins was put an end to.

The bishop Nerses, surnamed Schinorhali (the Gracious), brother of the patriarch, had just returned from the castle of Lambron, whither he had gone to put an end to the enmity which set the princes Thoros and Oschin at variance, when, as he was passing through Mopsueste, he took it into his head to pay a visit to prince Alexis, the imperial governor of Grecian Asia (1165). The question of the union of the Churches was there thoroughly discussed and gone into by both bishop and prince, who were equally deeply con versant with religious matters. Nerses prepared an apologetic statement on the doctrine and the rites of the Armenian Church, which the prince gladly undertook to present personally to the em peror Manuel I. Comnene (1143-1180). Grigor III. had quitted office, having abdicated in favour of his brother (April, 1166), but before long death overtook him (July, 1166) ; and it was then that Nerses IV. Schinorhali, being in possession of the see, published his famous Indanrakan (Encyclical), the text of which even to this day stands as an authority in ecclesiastical questions.

The answer to the statement which had been entrusted to prince Alexis was delivered to Nerses, who was now patriarch, although it had been addressed to Grigor III. (1167). Manuel, still ignorant of the abdication and the death of Grigor, asked that Nerses should be sent to Con stantinople to enter upon the negotiations. The latter, being unable to leave his office, proposed to go and see the emperor, as he passed through Asia at the head of the expedition which he had

ATTEMPTS TOWARDS UNION 63

got ready against the Tartars. He proposed also that the emperor should bring with him the Latin delegates, who had been sent from Rome to Con stantinople ; and as the Syrian patriarch was also present at Rhomkla, it would be possible, in a plenary Council, to establish union between the four Churches, and so put an end to the dis agreements which had existed for seven centuries. "For," said Nerses, "if there are certain points which the Armenians should rectify at the instance of the Greeks, there are also other points which the Greeks, in their turn, should remodel at the sug gestion of the Armenians." At the same time he sent a second dogmatic statement to the emperor, wherein he confirmed as patriarch all that he had written as bishop.

Manuel Comnene, who was prevented from pro ceeding to Asia on account of the disorders which supervened in Thessaly, directed the archiman drites Theorianus, a Greek, and Ohan Outman. an Armenian, to repair to the patriarch Nerses (1170), in order to induce him to accept the terms of the Greeks. The work known under the title of "Disputations between Theorianus and Nerses," written by Theorianus after his return to Constantinople, puts into the mouth of Nerses expressions which absolutely contradict the indis putable documents which have come down to us ; and this is a proof that Theorianus was anxious to hide his failure. Two years later (1172) the emperor Manuel again resumed the negotiations and proposed nine points for the acceptance of the Armenians. Nerses summoned for this purpose a general synod, but he died on August i6th, 1173, before it assembled. His nephew and successor, Grigor IV. Tegha, sent an answer to the emperor (1175), that it was impossible for him to accept the nine points he had proposed.

64 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

The emperor Manuel then brought down his proposal to two points, those concerning the Council of Chalcedon, and the two natures in Christ (1177). Grigor IV. called together the bishops and the divines of the inland provinces to deliberate over the matter ; but they, in the first place, refused to take the Greek proposals into consideration. The solicitations of the patriarch and of his cousin, Nerses of Lambron, archbishop of Tarsus, had the effect of causing the assembly of a synod at Rhomkla, which, far from adhering to the Greek proposals, propounded certain forms of compromise. But before the synodal letter was despatched to Constantinople, Manuel died (1180). Moreover, the internal dis orders of the empire prevented the continuance of negotiations. Thus the attempt at union with the Greeks came to an end with the life of Manuel. Isaac Angel (1185) abandoned the negotiations, and inauguarated a system of oppression against those Armenians who were settled within the empire.

CHAPTER XIV

LEANINGS TOWARDS UNITY

THE political aim of the Armenians was clearly to be seen in all these attempts at reconciliation. Scarcely had they realised the futility of negotiat ing with the Greeks, when the East was profoundly impressed by the Crusades, which brought to the front the figure of the emperor Frederic Bar- barossa, and this induced them at once to go over to the side of the Latins. The motive for this abrupt change was to be found in their desire to secure assistance, both political and military, with a view to converting their principality into a kingdom. This was essentially the objective in the mind of prince Levon II. (1185) ; and the pro moters of this policy were the patriarch Grigor IV. and the bishop Nerses of Lambron, who were pliant to the bidding of the prince. But the epis copate and the clergy of the inland provinces, known under the name of " the band of Eastern Divines," who had welcomed with satisfaction the failure of the synod of Rhomkla, were loud in their protestations against the efforts in favour of the Latins which were being made in Cilicia.

Grigor IV. died without anything decisive being done. The bishops Grigor Apirat and Nerses of Lambron, probable candidates for the succession, were suspected of Western sympathies, and were consequently disliked by the Eastern Divines. The prince Levon, too, felt he might gain over

66 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

the sympathies of the latter if he brought about the election of Grigor V. Karavege, a young bishop, twenty-two years of age. But the jealousy of the candidates, who were passed over, gave rise to false accusations against the young patriarch, who was deposed and confined in the castle of Kopitar. He was found dead near the place of his confinement (1194) ; and it was never dis covered if his end was due to a pure accident, or was the result of a crime.

Nevertheless, the desire for union dominated the situation. Between the out-and-out oppo sition of the Easterns and the inclinations of the Cilicians, prince Levon sought a neutral ground for harmony, being anxious neither to lose the royal crown which had been promised him by the Latins ; nor the support of the Easterns, on which he counted with a view to the extension of his power over the interior provinces of Armenia. The nomination of Grigor VI. Apirat to the pa triarchal see was not recognised by the Easterns, who proclaimed Barsegh II. of Ani. Furthermore, they demanded that he should be recognised by the Cilicians, and that Nerses of Lambron should be deprived of participating in the affairs of the patriarchate (1195). Levon apparently consented only to this latter condition. The split lasted until the death of Barsegh (1206).

Moreover, the closer intercourse between the Armenians and Latins awakened the distrust of the Greeks, and the emperor Alexis Angel seized the opportunity to renew the persecutions of the Armenians. The impetuous Nerses of Lambron was sent to Constantinople (1196) to try to bring about a fresh reconciliation, but his mission was a failure, and, being disappointed in his ex pectations, his zeal in favour of unity considerably abated.

LEANINGS TOWARDS UNITY 67

Then the negotiations with the Latins were ostensibly resumed. The emperors of the East and of the West had agreed to bestow the royal crown on Levon (1197) ; but the investiture, which had to be conferred by the pope, was allowed to drag on for two years, a period which was employed in discussing the details and the forms of union. The pope's legate proved to be so grasping in his demands, that the Armenian episcopate refused to submit to them. Levon, who was swayed only by solicitude for his own interests, proposed that his own personal adherence, which he considered sufficient, should be accepted ; but the legate particularly demanded that of the episcopate. Levon succeeded in producing, if not their unani mous adherence, at any rate that of a committee, of twelve bishops, which appeared to satisfy the legate (1198). The coronation took place on January 6th, 1199 ; the legate placed the crown on the king's head, and the patriarch applied the unction ; not long after, the patriarch died at the age of eighty-two. Once the coronation had taken place, Levon, who had shown himself to be such a zealous partisan of the Latins, appeared to set no value on the conditions in general which had been agreed upon for the purpose of bringing about the union.

During the patriarchate of Hovhannes VI., Medzabaro (1203-1221), Levon went so far as to thwart the instructions of the legate, and even to drive the Latin monks out of Cilicia. The patri arch, who was equally unfavourable to foreigners, took no account of the agreement of 1198. Indi vidual secessions broke out a short time after the proclamation of the antipatriarchs, but the almost contemporaneous deaths of Barsegh of Ani, of Anania of Sebaste, and of David of Arka- kahin (1206), put an end to them. The Easterns

68 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

on their side rallied round Hovhannes, thanks to the intervention of Zakaria Orbelian, the repre sentative of the king of Georgia, and the patriarch was able to end his days in peace (1221).

The long patriarchate of Constantine I. of Bartzrberd (1221-1267) was favourable to Latin influence in Cilicia. The surpassing power which the Latins had acquired, owing, on the one hand, to the expeditions of the emperor Frederic II. (1228) and to those of king St. Louis IX. (1248), and, on the other, to the tendency shown by the Armenians to avail themselves of the political and social advantages, which were the concomi tants of the superior advancement of Western peoples, had a favourable effect on the decisions of the government. It was at this time that Italian colonies multiplied in Cilicia ; and at the same time many Armenian colonies were founded in Italy. The relations which were established between the two nations gave a wider scope to the closeness of their connection. The king Levon having died without male issue (1219), his daughter Zabel was crowned queen at the age of sixteen. Her first marriage with Philippe, the count of Antioch (1222), proved unhappy. She married for the second time Hetoum (Aiton), son of the regent Constantine, prince of Korikos. When he was proclaimed king (1226), Hetoum turned out to be in perfect sympathy with the tendencies of the age, so much so that the patriarch and the king may be considered as the chief promoters of a closer tie between the Armenians and the Latins, as much from the political as from the eccle siastical standpoint. But it must be said to their credit that they sacrificed none of their dignity to the furtherance of this ideal of unity. It may be added, in passing, that the same measure of praise cannot be accorded to their successors.

LEANINGS TOWARDS UNITY 69

It is an important point to note that Constantino and Hetoum, while maintaining good relations with the Latins, continued negotiating with the Greeks, through the intermediary of the bishop Hacob, surnamed Guitnakan (the Savant).

Hacob (1267-1286) and Constantine II. Prona- gortz (1286-1289), who came in succession after Constantine I., had the support of king Levon III. (1270-1289), and did their best to protect their independence from the Latins, who lived in their very midst. But king Hetoum II. (1289-1305), on the other hand, inaugurated a most subservient policy. He caused Constantine II., who resisted him, to be deposed ; and brought in as his succes sor a simple anchorite, Stepanos IV. of Rhomkla, who fell into the hands of the Egyptians at the capture of Rhomkla (1293). Hetoum II. and the Latinophiles succeeded finally in raising to the patriarchal see Grigor VII. of Anavarza, who wras a zealous partisan of their opinions.

The new patriarch began by specifying the alterations, outlined according to the formulas of the Roman Church, which he intended to intro duce into the Armenian Church. He was begin ning to carry his undertakings through, when disturbances in the interior put a stop to them. After order was again established, he summoned a synod at Sis, in order to obtain approval there to his plans ; but he died before the meeting of this synod (1307). The king succeeded in get ting Constantine III. of Caesarea nominated as patriarch, and made him adopt the syllabus of Grigor VII., which, although it was drawn up in a common dialect and was ill-suited to the learning of the deceased prelate, passed muster as being his handiwork.

Reckoning from this period until the trans ference of the see from Sis to Etchmiadzin (1441),

70 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

the desire towards union is found to become more and more pronounced. To the Latinophile kings of the family of Korikos succeeded the Latin and Roman Catholic kings of the family of the Lusignans. Meanwhile the political situation in the interior, being at the mercy of disturbing elements, was extremely critical. The Armeno- Latin understanding had excited the suspicion of the Tartars, the Turks, and the Egyptians ; and while the Armenians still reckoned on the protection of the Christian powers, Europe, ex hausted and enfeebled, was losing ground in Asia. Religious questions had always been allied with political issues as a condition indispensable to success ; but even then, when a desired solution had been achieved, it was not found possible, in very truth, to produce the effect which was expected from it. The patriarchs succeeded each other, inspired sometimes by Latinophile pro clivities, sometimes by nationalist longings ; at any rate they were powerless to contend against the Roman Catholic kings of the family of the Lusignans. The Armenian Church, however, suc ceeded in keeping herself definitively free from Roman Catholic principles. She maintained her administrative independence and her doctrinal individuality, although she was unable to prevent laxity of discipline and of good order. Fifteen patriarchs followed in succession at Sis, from Grigor VII. to Grigor IX., during the period of a century and a half (1294-1441) ; and it must be confessed, if we take into account the course of events which we have just related, that Sis w;as scarcely an auspicious seat for the patriarchate.

CHAPTER XV

THE RETURN TO ETCHMIADZIN

DURING the first half of the fifteenth century the Armenian Church was labouring under the stress of the greatest disorder. The kingdom of Cilicia had finally disappeared (1375) ; Sis, together with king Levon VI., had fallen into the hands of the Egyptians ; only a few Armenian chiefs, on the Amanus and in the passes of the Taurus, still held out. In order to estimate how much of her strength and of her splendour the patriarchal see had lost, it is sufficient to remark that the last six patriarchs (1377-1432) had only gained the pontificate through the assassination of their predecessors and through recourse to bribery. In order to recoup themselves for the outlay, they did not shrink from resorting to extortions of all kinds. They set little value on purity of doctrine, and were ready to submit to any compromise whereby profit might be gained. The Roman Catholic propaganda was successfully carried on in Cilicia, owing to the zeal of the Latin mission aries of the Franciscan Order. At the same time the Dominicans set to work to convert Great Armenia, where they founded a special Latino- Armenian Brotherhood, " Unitor," under the patronage of the bishop Barthelemy of Bologna. The Armenian colony, which was at that time established in the Crimea under the rule of the Genoese, entered, through the interference of the latter, into direct relations with Rome. They even sent to the Council of Florence (1439) a dele-

7*

72 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

gation charged with instructions to negotiate a union. The see of Aghthamar, which had severed her connection in 1114, had been reconciled to the mother Church under the patriarchate of Hacob III. of Sis (1409), through the intermediary of the great divine, St. Grigor of Tathev, who had wisely set himself to the task of terminating this split. The patriarchs of Aghthamar, faced with the decay of the see of Sis, and anxious to uphold the purity of doctrine and tradition of their Church, resolved to respond to the over tures. It must be added that their intention was also to enhance the prestige of their see. The theological institute of Sunik, which had for centuries enjoyed a justly merited reputation, had in these latter years acquired a fresh addition of vitality under the direction of the holy divines, Hovhannes of Orotn (fi388), Maghakia of Khrim (11384), and Grigor of Tathev (fi4io). A con siderable number of their disciples, who deplored the lamentable state of their Church, had resolved to remedy it. Such were the undercurrents and motives which induced the nation to resort to radical measures. As, at last, it began to dawn upon the people that it was neither sensible nor use ful to keep up the patriarchal residence at a distance from its original site, they contemplated its re-estab lishment at Etchmiadzin, because of the relatively better security this town enjoyed under Persian domination. Grigor IX. Moussabeguian, who, in reality, occupied the patriarchal see, when called upon to effect this transfer, at first refused, and then gave his acquiescence ; and a general synod of seven hundred members, composed of bishops, archimandrites, doctors of divinity, archpriests, princes, and dignitaries, assembled at Etchmiadzin (May, 1441), and accorded their approval to this decision. Then, to put a stop to all possible

THE RETURN TO ETCHMIADZIN 73

conflict between the various candidates, Kirakos of Virap, an ecclesiastic of the most saintly character and one who had taken no part in the previous agitations, was elected in place of Grigor IX., who had retired. This choice, there fore, put an end to the rivalries of Zakaria, patriarch of Aghthamar, of Zakaria of Havoutz- tar, head of the Sunik institute, and of Grigor Djelalbeguian, archbishop of Ardaze, who found themselves passed over by this election.

A happier era for the Church appeared to be manifesting itself. All at once, there seemed to be no further need for attempts at union, and the see of Aghthamar definitely gave in her adherence ; capable men appeared at the head of the move ment for restoration, and the strength of their combined energy was of good augury. Unfor tunately, passion and prejudice began to endanger the whole situation, allowing individual interest to take the place of the general good ; and so the Church was unable to realise her ideal of peace. The patriarch Kirakos, being unable to dominate the situation, abdicated at the end of two years (1443) ; and was succeeded by Grigor X. Djelal beguian. Zakaria of Aghthamar, who caused himself to be proclaimed supreme patriarch after the resignation of Kirakos, overthrew Grigor and took possession of Etchmiadzin (1461), but he scarcely maintained his position for a year. Grigor X. resumed power, and those who had assisted him to reinstate himself in the see were raised to the honours of the patriarchate as coad jutors, with full titles and full powers. It was thus that Aristakes II. Athorakal and Sarkis II. Atchatar were called to that office. Dating from this period, and during the next two centuries, there prevailed at Etchmiadzin the system of admitting coadjutors to the patriarchal see, who

74 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

possessed the titles and prerogatives of patriarch ; and the object of this policy was to gratify the ambitions of certain bishops and to win over the sympathy of the factions. The one beneficial conse quence which was the outcome of such a procedure was the simplicity which it introduced in the order of succession by the immediate enthronement of the senior coadjutor. For, in consequence of the then disturbed state of the country and the dis persion of the Armenians, the summoning of the electoral synods had become increasingly difficult.

Since the early centuries, the possession of the relic of the Right Arm (Atch) of St. Grigor Lu- savoritch had been considered to be the appanage of the patriarchal dignity ; it was with the " Holy Atch " that consecrations were performed, as well as that of the holy chrism. This relic had accompanied the patriarchs throughout their long wanderings, consequently the transference of the see from Sis to Etchmiadzin should have been confirmed by the presence of this relic. Zakaria of Aghthamar, in order to justify his claims, had seized it and carried it off with him when he was driven out of Etchmiadzin (1462). The relic remained at Aghthamar, whence it was again carried off and conveyed to Etchmiadzin by the bishop Vertanes of Odzop (1477), who obtained possession of it under peculiar circum stances. The disorders at Etchmiadzin and the abstraction of the "Holy Atch" incited bishop Karapet of Tokat, with a view to the restoration of the see of Sis, to make a boast of the pretended possession of a holy Atch (1447). The foundation of the patriarchal see (catholicosate) of Sis dates from that time ; it has continued without inter ruption to the present day, though she has become reconciled to the mother Church.

The see of Etchmiadzin became a prey to

THE RETURN TO ETCHMIADZIN 75

external and internal troubles, which lasted until the election of Movses III. of Tathev (1629). More than thirty dignitaries succeeded in turn to the title of patriarch or coadjutor, without so much as a single personality among them all arising who was capable of mastering the situa tion. The city of Etchmiadzin formed at that time a part of the Persian possessions, and the governors or khans of Erivan saw in these feuds but an opportunity for extorting money. They invariably ranged themselves on the side of the highest bidder, and when no bidder was found, they subjected the patriarchs to bodily tortures until the necessary contributions were levied. It was not possible under such conditions to under take any serious or regular work, and the period may be characterised as one of complete decline. Only one patriarch is worthy of mention, Mikael of Sebaste (1542-1564-1570), who knew how to curb the ambitions of the patriarchs both of Aghthamar and of Caspian Albania. The insti tution of Armenian printing is due to him. He sent Abgar of Tokat to Italy (1562) to make a study of the process ; and he furnished him with letters of introduction to pope Pius IV. to assist him in his task. The earliest publications made their appearance at Venice in 1565 under the superintendence of Abgar. There are, however, earlier existing publications which date back to 1512 ; but these are the work of European pub lishers and of Armenian traders. The initiative of the patriarch Mikael had the most happy results ; from that time Armenian printing establishments sprang up at Venice, Rome, Constantinople, Etch miadzin, Ispahan, and Amsterdam. The most im portant and the best among all the works was the illustrated edition of the Bible by the bishop Oskan, which was published at Amsterdam in 1666.

CHAPTER XVI

THE PATRIARCHATE OF CONSTANTINOPLE

THE creation of a special see at Constantinople took place at the same time as the transference of the supreme patriarchal see from Sis to Etch- miadzin. After the conquest of Constantinople by Mahomet II., he introduced radical measures for ensuring the submission of the Greeks. The Ottoman laws were entirely of a religious char acter, and individual and social rights drew their inspiration wholly from Islamic principles. The Musalman powders, when bringing under subjec tion Christian countries, found themselves faced with the alternatives, either of imposing their religion on the conquered peoples, or of granting them an administrative and social autonomy. Neither of these two methods could be applied to Constantinople, which happened to be proclaimed the capital of the new Musalman empire. It seemed necessary, therefore, that the conquering power should grant to the religious head of the Greeks those social and civil privileges which were strictly connected with their religion. Thus all matters concerning family life, such as mar riage, public instruction, charities, worship and its ministers, spiritual administration, etc., were made over to the jurisdiction of the religious head. In this way the patriarch found himself invested with a kind of civil jurisdiction or imperial patriciate (1453),

76

CONSTANTINOPLE PATRIARCHATE 77

After having thus settled the enactment of private rights for the Greeks, the conquering power felt it would be advisable to set, in opposition to them, another Christian element, which it deemed to be more attached to its own interests. The Turks accordingly caused the removal of a large Armenian colony to Constantinople, which was portioned off to the several quarters of the city in divergent directions, both inside the walls and in the neighbourhood of the principal gateways. At the same time, as an additional precaution, the Greeks were massed together in the central quarters, far removed from the towers and the ramparts. The Armenians had enjoyed the con fidence of the Turks since the time of Osman I. Ghazi ; and the new colony was placed on the same footing as the Greek element. Bishop Hova- kim, metropolitan of the Armenian colonies in Asia Minor, was translated from Broussa to Con stantinople, where he was invested with the titles and honours, as well as privileges, similar to those accorded to the Greek patriarch (1461).

It was in this manner that the two patriarchs, Greek and Armenian, became recognised as the heads of the two great orthodox Christian parties in the East ; that division was established on the basis of a profession of faith, independently of any consideration of race or of nationality. All the orthodox dyophysites, viz. Greeks, Bulgarians, Servians, Albanians, Wallachians, Moldavians, Ruthenians, Croatians, Caramanians, Syrians, Melkites, and Arabs, became associated, under their respective chiefs, with the jurisdiction of the Greek patriarch ; while the orthodox mono- physites, comprising the Armenians, Syrians, Chaldaeans, Copts, Georgians, and Abyssinians, became subject, under their respective chiefs, to the jurisdiction of the Armenian patriarch.

78 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

The Jews at that time enjoyed no legal status, and the Roman Catholics or Levantines were looked upon as foreigners ; so that the native- born who embraced Roman Catholicism were not able to take advantage of their conversion so far as affected certain external religious acts, such as baptism, marriage, burial, etc. This state of affairs lasted uninterruptedly for centuries, and it was only towards the middle of the last century that it came to an end through the creation of a Catholic patriarchate (1830) ; this creation led to others, according to their dis similarity of rites and professions of faith.

The Armenian patriarchs of Constantinople applied themselves, in the course of this same period, to centralise as far as possible the affairs of their people in the provinces of the interior. Their administrative sphere of action gradually extended itself over all the provinces of the empire, until it comprised the dioceses under the spiritual control of the patriarchates of Sis, of Aghthamar, and of Jerusalem. The history of this first epoch bears record only of conflicts between the sees and the dioceses, and these took place in an environment of political disorders and unceasing wars. But, in order not to encumber this historical sketch with narratives which can only make us deviate from our purpose, we must pass them by in silence.

CHAPTER XVII

A PERIOD OF AWAKENING

WE have been over-scrupulous in describing the lamentable state into which the Armenian nation and its Church had fallen in the Middle Ages. But it must, in justice, be added that this Church was not responsible for her misfortunes ; for, the sad state of her condition, both social and civil, should not be laid at her door, where some apolo gists of Romanism have ventured to place it. The decadence of the West in the Middle Ages, and the abuses which were committed there in the name of religion, do they not in themselves suffice to give the lie to their assertions ?

Before passing a severe judgment on the Chris tians of the East, we should call to mind the ruin and desolation which were spread far and wide by the hordes coming from the east and the south, as well as the persecutions under which they never ceased to be victimised at the hands of the conquerors. We should consider too the intellectual darkness in which the rulers delighted to enshroud the conquered races ; the total absence of any means, moral or material, whereby they could dispel such gloom ; and, lastly, the enormous sacrifices to which they had to submit, in order to maintain even their material existence.

But, notwithstanding these circumstances, the signal for a renewed vitality must at least be placed to the credit of the Armenian nation, which

79

80 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

was the first in the East to make successful efforts to escape from a position so difficult, which no social amelioration had the power of lessening ; and despairingly she ever stretched out her hands towards any quarter where she seemed to see a glimmering of hope for her escape.

The Renaissance had hardly begun to cast its first rays over the West before the Armenians hastened to flock into Europe in their eagerness for intellectual regeneration. The mission from a remote corner of Asia, which was sent by the patriarch Mikael when the invention of Gutenberg was first heard of, furnishes a remarkable instance of their zeal. Unfortunately, at that moment the West was a prey to religious fanaticism, which placed it at the mercy of a most intolerant policy. It would do nothing for those who refused to yield to the offers of Roman Catholicism. The indispensable condition for obtaining aid and protection was submission to the papacy, the supreme arbiter of the period. Could they who instituted the auto-da-fe be reasonably expected to bring succour to the Churches of the East ? Can it be forgotten that the disciples of Francis d'Assisi, of Dominic Guzman, and of Ignatius Loyola applied their apostolic zeal towards the conversion of the ancient Christians of the East to the new Christianity of the West ? Cease lessly they laboured to force upon the custodians of the dogmas of the primitive Church the inno vations of Latin scholasticism.

Under these difficult circumstances, the Ar menians pursued a course of action which was at times conciliatory, ard at times uncompromising : conciliatory whenever the required sacrifice did not exceed the limits of a wise tolerance ; un compromising when the demands went beyond the voice of prudence ; conciliatory when they

A PERIOD OF AWAKENING 81

looked forward to some advantage ; uncompro mising when the gain had to be purchased at the price of too great a sacrifice. There were those, however, who did not hesitate to push the spirit of conciliation to its furthest limits, carried away, as they were, by the ardour of their progressive convictions ; but others refused to surrender aught, even when it was but a seeming surrender. These facts must not be lost sight of if we have a mind rightly to account for the events which gave rise to the desire to take a share in that activity of intellect which was then taking place in the West.

Among those who devoted themselves to such activity we should mention among the foremost the patriarch Movses III. of Tathev, who, even before his accession, had consecrated his life to the work of reform and reorganisation. It was to his zeal for restoration that the see of Etchmiad- zin owes her recovery from a state of complete ruin. He procured from the Persian government a cessation of those exactions by which the Church was victimised, and even an exemption from taxes ; and he successfully carried through a reform of ecclesiastical customs and doctrines. His elevation to the patriarchate was but the reward for services he had rendered, for his energy on the throne was of brief duration, three years only (1629-1632). Philippos (Philip) of Agh- bak (1633-1655), who succeeded him, continued the work of reformation begun by his pre decessor. He undertook a journey to Turkey, where he was powerfully instrumental in the settlement of the affairs of the patriarchates of Constantinople and of Jerusalem. He assembled a synod in the latter town (1651), in order to put an end to the disputes which set Etchmiadzin and Sis at variance ; and he accorded his approval

6

82 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

to a communion between Sis and the mother Church, on the same lines as that which had been accorded previously in the case of the see of Aghthamar. Furthermore, he endeavoured to im prove the material conditions of the patriarchal see, and for that purpose he undertook the irri gation of the country round Etchmiadzin by means of an ingenious system of canals.

Hacob IV. of Djoulfa (1655-1680), who suc ceeded him, followed in the same path. But unfortunately serious complications, which broke out at Constantinople, engrossed his attention. Missionaries from Rome, under the direction of father Clement Galano, had come to win over to their cause a body of Armenians. One of the cleverest of their party, Thomas of Aleppo, even succeeded in taking possession of the patriarchate, but he did not hold it long ; for he was at once driven away by the people. At the same time bishop Yeghiazar of Aintab, who had occupied successively the patriarchates of Constantinople and of Jerusalem, caused himself to be proclaimed supreme patriarch of Turkey, in opposition to Etchmiadzin. Hacob was obliged to go in person to Constantinople (1664), where he was fortunate enough to restore matters to some degree of order (1667). But a renewal of dissensions, and the attempts of bishop Nicol to force Roman Catho licism on the Armenians of Poland, made it necessary for him to go a second time to Con stantinople (1679). He undertook this task notwithstanding his great age, but he was over come by its hardships, and died at the age of eighty-two (1680). He was buried in the cemetery of Pera, where, to the present day, his grave is the object of veneration to the faithful.

The see remained vacant for two years, in consequence of the dissensions which were stirred

A PERIOD OF AWAKENING 83

up by Yeghiazar. It was only after this delay that the election took place, and then the choice actually fell on the latter. His pontificate, which lasted nine years (1682-1691), was produc tive of happy results. For, when once his am bition was satisfied, he was lacking neither in good intentions nor in ability, and all his efforts were in the right direction. He, too, from among the succession of supreme patriarchs of the Ar menian Church, has bequeathed a memory which is justly held in honour.

CHAPTER XVIII

A SURVEY OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

THE love of progress and of knowledge, which was fostered by the Armenians, who let no obstacle stand in the way of their indulging in it to the fullest, had the effect of assisting, in a marked manner, the efforts of the Roman missionaries towards the spreading of their faith.

A whole band of active partisans of Roman Catholicism had been established at Constan tinople during the eighteenth century. They had allowed themselves to be won over by the missionaries from Pera, who were under the patronage and leadership of the representatives of the Most Christian kings. Although the new Catholics did not cease to be officially dependent on the Armenian patriarchate, they formed an active party, whose aim was nothing short of usurpation of the national administration. The earnest guardians of the Church, strong both in number and in their influence with the Turkish Council, and true to their traditions, employed every means to thwart these intrigues. As these neophytes maintained constant relations with foreigners, endeavour was made to cause the eyes of the government to view them with sus picion. Such were the origin and the meaning of the measures which were instigated by the patri archate and imposed by the government against those Armenians who had become Catholics ;

84

THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 85

these measures, which have been termed religious persecutions, were in reality but weapons of war. The neo-Catholics, on their part, did not hesitate to make use of similar methods against the pa triarchate, which they accused of encouraging Muscovite aims.

Apart from Constantinople, Roman Catholicism obtained some measure of success at Mardin and Aleppo. The bishops Melcon Tasbasian and Abraham Ardzivian openly declared in its favour at these places. This defection soon brought on itself the coercive measures of the patriarchate. The Catholics, in their turn, took advantage of the influence of the French ambassadors to coerce the patriarchate. The fate of the patriarch Avedik of Tokat is well known ; through the interference of the king's ambassador, he was first imprisoned at Seven-Towers (1703), and then, after being secretly abducted from Tenedos, where he had been exiled, was taken to France (1710), where he was brought to trial and condemned by the Inquisition (1711). Special mention should also be made of the case of Mekhitar of Sebaste, an ecclesiastic of progressive and liberal views, who tried to take advantage of the Venetian supremacy in the Morea, in order to lay the foundation there of a monastic establishment for educational pur poses (1712) under the auspices of Catholicism ; but he was obliged to relinquish his purpose in consequence of the Venetians retiring from the country. Then he decided to settle in the small island of San-Lazaro at Venice (1717). Mekhitar had to yield to the demands of the Roman Curia in order to be able to devote himself without restraint to his work of intellectual culture ; he wisely abstained from being a party to the work of proselytism. Such a line of conduct, which was in keeping with national interests, had be-

86 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

come traditional among his congregation during the course of the eighteenth century ; but later, other opinions took root in their midst. Never theless, it is a grateful task to pay homage to the Mekhitarists of Venice and of Vienna for the great services they have rendered to the nation by enriching so profusely the Armenian language and literature.

Another monastic institution, the Antonine society, was founded at the same period by Abra ham Attar on Mount Lebanon in the Maronite country. While answering in every respect to the purpose which was kept in view in selecting a Latin country, the position of Lebanon afforded the further advantage that it maintained touch with the nation. The Armenians of the southern provinces of Turkey, whose minds were still impressed with the memory of the Cilician king dom, were more inclined to lean towards Roman Catholicism. They were even bold enough, with the co-operation of two bishops and a few priests, to establish a Catholic patriarchal see in Cilicia. The first incumbent was the bishop Abraham Ardzivian (1740), who hastened to appear before pope Benoit XIV. in the capacity of supreme patriarch of the Armenians. The pope, indeed, was aware of the value to be placed on his pre tensions, but he did nothing to discourage them ; for he saw therein an opportunity of realising his plans in the East. Accordingly he gave his sanction to the establishment of an Armeho- Catholic patriarchate which was officially subject to the Roman Curia (1742).

These Roman Catholic establishments, sup ported by the Roman Propaganda and actively patronised by the French government, were potent instruments for the extension of Catholicism among the Armenians during the eighteenth

THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 87

century. However, it may be mentioned that the results which accrued were in no way commen surate either with the efforts made or with the means employed. The closer contact with Euro pean ideas, which was the direct cause of prose- lytism, did, in fact, contribute to the raising of the intellectual level of the nation, but we cannot help thinking that this result might have been brought about by other means ; the natural evolution of progressive thought would have met the case. In proof of this, we have the initia tive of Vardan of Baghesch, the superior of the monastery of Amlordi, who knew how to give a brisk impulse to the cause of public education in the provinces. His disciples, Hovhannes Kolot and Hacob Nalian, patriarchs of Constantinople, and Grigor Schikhtaiakir, patriarch of Jerusalem, were able to render conspicuous services without departing from their loyalty to the Church. It was due to their efforts that the eighteenth century gave tokens of a visible progress both in national life and in matters connected with the Church.

We have given in these later pages a prepon derant place to the patriarchate of Constantinople. We feel justified in taking this course, from the fact that the events which bore on the history of the supreme patriarchate had already begun to lose their importance. From the day that a patriarchal see and a strong colony were estab lished in the capital of Turkey, that city became the centre of the Armenian nation. The ten supreme patriarchs who succeeded Yeghiazar of Aintab, from Nahapet of Edessa (1691-1705) to Hacob V. of Schamakhi (1759-1763), did not bring themselves to notice by any act worthy of mention ; their sole distinction lay in their de votion to the welfare of the patriarchate. Simeon of Erivan (1763-1780), who succeeded them, is

88 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

looked upon as the most noble personality of the age. His untiring energy was productive of much good work, such as an exact cadastral survey, whereby the landed interest of Etchmiadzin was brought under settlement, his demand for the restoration of the rights pertaining to the supreme see, the organisation of a college, the introduction of printing, and the erection of a paper mill. To him also is due the establishment of the first intercourse with the Russian empire, the insti tution of patriarchal archives, and lastly the revision of the liturgical calendar, which, in spite of some critics, has become general in the Church.

Ghoukas (Luke) of Karine, who followed him (1780-1799), was anxious to complete the work begun by Simeon. He formed a permanent council of six bishops to assist the patriarch, and to ensure regularity in ecclesiastical matters. After this he set to work to decorate the interior of the patriarchal cathedral.

Zakaria Pokouzian (1773-1799), who is the last in the line of patriarchs of Constantinople in this century, was a worthy rival to Simeon in his energy for reformation. What redounded most to his credit was his communication of a lively impulse to the education of the clergy. He devoted himself personally to their instruction, in order to train up capable disciples ; then, when he had equipped them, he placed them at the head of scholastic work and in administrative offices. The college of Armache, which has given so many distinguished patriarchs and bishops to the Church, was founded by Bartholomeos Kapoutik and Poghos Karakotch, both disciples of Zakaria.

A SURVEY OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

GHOUKAS and Zakaria both died in the same year (1799), and the nineteenth century opened with electoral struggles of an intense character, having for their object the filling up of the vacant sees of Etchmiadzin and of Constantinople. The great Revolution, which then convulsed the West, did not fail to have some influence on the temper of the Armenians. Hovsep Arghoutian, David Gor- ganian, and Daniel of Sourmari disputed over the see of Etchmiadzin, and each had his partisans. The first of these succeeded in securing election to the patriarchal throne, but died before he obtained possession of it. His rival, the next in order, attained to it and held it for a few years ; but he was deposed, and succeeded by the third, Daniel of Sourmari (1804-1809). It was not till then that peace was restored to Etchmiadzin.

The heads of the Church at Constantinople followed with a rapidity of succession which was no less remarkable. Daniel of Sourmari, David Gorganian, Hovhannes Tchamaschirdjean, Grigor of Khamsi, and again Hovhannes, came in succes sion within the space of three years (1799-1802). The last-named alone managed to remain in power for any length of time (1802-1813) ; and he was wise enough to take advantage of this lull to restore some little order and regularity into the conduct of affairs.

go THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

The essential and characteristic feature of the nineteenth century is the intervention of the nation in matters affecting the Church, and the co-operation of national councils in her adminis tration. The first experiment of introducing this system was made in order to settle in some measure the issue which had been raised by the partisans of Roman Catholicism. It was necessary to arrive at a compromise so as to avoid the split, which threatened to assume gigantic proportions, fostered as it was by the attitude of the French government in her anxiety to extend her influence in the East. To this end a commission was first formed, which was in agreement with the patriar chate (1810). Later on another took its place (1816), for the purpose of bringing about a con ference between the theologians of the two dis sentient confessions of faith. Three years were spent in controversy (1817-1820), without any understanding being arrived at ; the tendency being rather to accentuate their differences. While the desire on one side was towards separa tion, the other upheld to the uttermost the princi ple of union. At length, after the Russo-Turkish peace of 1829 and the intervention of the European powers, the Ottoman government, with a view to ending the disputes, determined to establish a community or autonomous nationality (millet), which went under the name of Katolik (Catholic). This community comprised all the partisans of Roman Catholicism who were Ottoman subjects, without distinction of race or of ritual (1830).

This solution had the effect of encouraging the Protestant powers to follow the same example ; and the first missionary landed at Constantinople one year after the institution of the Katolik community (1831). From this moment prose- lytism increased considerably, being helped along

91

by scholastic establishments and by pecuniary aids, which made it possible to buy men's con sciences. The work was so well done that soon a new community or autonomous nationality (millet) came into existence under the name of Protestan (Protestant), including within its fold Protestants of every race and of every confession of faith (1847) . These two separatist communities, though established on the exclusive basis of a profession of faith without distinction of race, ended by becoming Armenian. And we do not hesitate to confess that if these establishments led to an enfeeblement of the nation, they at any rate served in procuring for her certain advantages as regards her relations with the Western world. During this same period Etchmiadzin was the seat of great political changes. As the Persian rule, carried on through khans who were almost autonomous, became more and more insupport able, the Armenians began to turn their eyes towards the czar of Russia. In the meantime they tried to escape their present persecution by emigrating en masse into Russian territory ; but, as a more effectual remedy for the state of affairs, they craved the establishment of the czar's government in the Caucasus. As the archbishop Hovsep Arghoutian had been the instigator of this policy, Catherine II. (1762-1796) and the emperor Paul (1796-1801) showered their favours on him, and the title of prince was bestowed on the members of his family. Since then Russian domination has made headway and her invasions have brought about the occupation of Erivan and Etchmiadzin, a consummation in which Armenian volunteers, under the command of archbishop Nerses of Aschtarak (1828), bore their share. On this occasion the emperor Nicolas I. (1825- 1855) was lavish with his promises, even to the

92 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

extent of dangling before their eyes the glittering hope of political autonomy. As a pledge of his good intentions, he even, for the time being, gave the name of Armenia to his new provinces. But it was no more than a mere political move planned with the object of making more easy his scheme of domination. When once the country was subdued, the czar's government attempted to bring the spiritual element also under subjection. Thus it was that the regulation (pologenia) which was specially enacted (1836) for the purpose of establishing connection with the patriarchal administration, opened very wide the door for the interference of the political authority. Any comments which the Armenians of Russia, Turkey, and of India might have made in this connection were in vain, and the pologenia has remained un modified and in full force.

All this time the Armenian patriarchate of Constantinople was being administered under the unrestricted authority of the patriarchs. These, in their turn, were subject to the influence and superior control of the amiras, who were the leading men of the nation. It is true that these latter had no claim to distinction save that which their wealth conferred on them. But the mis placement of power inseparable from so anomalous a position, when it was coupled with progress of thought and the appearance of a new generation educated in France, led to the aspiration of all classes in the social scale to take their share in public affairs. From this time forward, councils came into existence in accordance with elective principles. At first a chief council was appointed solely for the management of finance (1841). Later another was established for purposes of general adminis tration, consisting of fourteen ecclesiastics and twenty laymen (1847) \ and from the latter sprang,

THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 93

still later, an offshoot in the form of a special council of public instruction (1853). As the need was felt for regulations, in order to fix the spheres of action of these councils and to regularise their system of management, a constitution (sahmana- drouthiuri), or Armenian statute, was finally worked into shape (1860). This important title- deed was subject to the sanction of the Ottoman government, but its approval was gained with some difficulty ; for it was not till after three years of negotiations, and repeated popular demonstrations, that the Turkish Council resolved to give effect to the proposed procedure (1863).

These regulations, which may be regarded as the outcome of the intellectual progress which the masses had acquired, gave, in their turn, the motive power towards national development, thanks to that spontaneous evolution which is ever innate in the intellectual and social sphere, whereby action creates action, each in turn being the cause of new results. It is by virtue of this natural law that progress is disseminated among the communities of mankind. The nineteenth century has given tokens of a marked improve ment in the social order, by the increase of schools and the growing number of students who have been taught in the European universities, by the spread of primary education, by the establish ment, both in Turkey and in Russia, of commercial houses and of banks, and by the preferment of individuals of Armenian origin to the highest political and diplomatic offices in the countries of their adoption.

The close relationship which has always existed between the nation and her Church has been the cause of the latter, too, in her turn, gaining con siderably through the emancipation of thought. A more systematic and a more active adminis-

94 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

tration, a better instructed clergy, more suitable buildings, larger offerings, more solemn ritual, more edifying sermons, such have been the results of the work of progress during the course of this century. This uninterrupted growth of character has, of necessity, led the longings of the Armenians towards a more perfect ideal of social welfare, and has moved them to force on the ears of the civilised world their legitimate desire for a real participation in the blessings of modern civilisation.

While on this subject, we might take it a stage further and expand on the character of the Armenian element, specifying the qualifications which it has always exhibited by brilliant evi dences in the various branches of human activity, and describing the role it has played in the coun tries and with the peoples among whom Armenians have taken up their abode. But, for the moment, we will abstain from making any allusions of this nature. However, in closing this chapter, we will sum up the situation by adding that the move ment towards civilisation, progress, and liberty, which has been stirred in the breast of the Ar menian nation in Russia, in Turkey, and even in Persia, in modern times, is in a great measure due to the action of her clergy.

PART II DOCTRINE

CHAPTER XX

THE PRINCIPLES OF DOGMAS

IF, on the one hand, it be true that all branches and denominations of Christianity have their roots sunk deep in the gospels, which are, in the first place, rounded off by the epistles of the New Testament, and, in the second place, by the books of the Old Testament ; on the other hand, we see the various communions of which it is com posed, not only differing among themselves on essential points, but frequently appearing to be in flagrant contradiction on questions of doctrine. And yet, in spite of these disagreements, not one of them disclaims the gospels as their ground work ; all with one accord claim to derive their doctrines from that self-same source. The pheno menon is at once strange and true. We must search for the cause in the tenor and the style of those books which only present doctrine in its primordial state, and, if we were allowed to use a common expression, in a crude and material form, which is capable of assuming the shape which the artist means to give it.

In the matter of doctrine, however, one cannot permit an arbitrarily free scope, or one dependent on individual or collective fancy, for the purpose of enunciating such or such a doctrinal proposi tion. Liberty of this kind has been, however, permitted by the Protestant reformers, whose principles glide by unconscious descent until they

7 97

98 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

reach complete rationalism, so much so that at the present time it is scarcely possible to discern any trace of revealed Christianity in their beliefs. Their doctrine, properly speaking, amounts to a purely philosophical concept.

As loyal disciples of the Armenian Church, clinging with fervency to her ancient traditions, we have taken good care not to enter a similar path ; it is our intention to adhere to positive and traditional ground, and suitably to consider only those principles which have the sanction of re cognised authority.

All Christian denominations are comprised within two main branches, of which one is con stituted on the basis of a hierarchy and of ritual. All the ancient Churches, without exception, were connected with that branch. The others are comprised in the category of Churches which sprang from the Reformation of the sixteenth century. Among the latter, only the Anglican Episcopal Church, which has accepted both hier archy and ritual, can be classed in the category of ancient Churches.

In the system peculiar to the first category, to the Oecumenic Councils belonged exclusively the power to evolve correct doctrine from the original matter of the holy books, and to formulate dog matic propositions. Nevertheless, it was incum bent on them neither to deviate from the basis of tradition, nor to arrogate to themselves the liberty to follow their own inspirations, nor the arguments, pure and simple, of the individual judgment.

To make ourselves better understood, we should settle, first of all, the distinguishing feature be tween a dogma and a doctrine. The dogma is a proposition drawn from the sacred books and expressed in formula which is both clear and dis-

THE PRINCIPLES OF DOGMAS 99

tinct. It should be accepted by the followers of a given Church, on pain of estrangement from the bosom of that Church. The doctrine is a statement or explanation, equally drawn from the sacred books and corroborated by tradition. Con sequently, it may be accepted as an assertion which is sound and positive, or it may be quasi- positive ; but it imposes no obligation on the faithful to comply with it absolutely. In any case, they cannot be shut out of the Church unless they deny her. The dogma is the teaching of the Church ; the doctrine is but the statement of the school. Dogmas belong to religion ; doc trines to theology.

The ancient Churches referred to the authority of Oecumenic Councils all beliefs which were in question, in order that any difficulty raised in connection with a dogma might be solved. That rule has never ceased to be rigorously observed from the early centuries until our present time.

The Roman Church alone deemed it necessary, in the second half of the nineteenth century, to take away that prerogative from the Councils and to fix it on the person of the pope. But, in order to justify such a usurpation of authority, she could not do less than refer to that self-same authority which she had despoiled, thus com pelling it to commit a moral suicide. But we need not dwell on this.

It is said that the authority of the Oecumenic Councils for the formulation of dogmas was the outcome, in the first place, of the promise of divine assistance ; that is to say, it is based on the spiritual aid which was promised to the Church. On the other hand, it is equally the re sultant of the logical efficacy derived from the main body, and the immediate nearness of tradi tions. Therefore, it is not so much the number

ioo THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

of individuals, in the Oecumenic Councils, who are accepted as authorities, as the number of the Churches which are there represented. It follows, therefore, that the members of a Council which only concerns a single Church, though they may number a thousand, can only reflect the tradition of that particular Church ; whereas, if they re present different Churches, they become the mouthpiece of the dominant opinion of the Uni versal Church. Likewise, if there is proximity of time between the origin of the tradition and its attestation, we are impressed by the force of the testimony. Can we reasonably attach any im portance to a testimony which is connected with events or remarks which are about nineteen cen turies old ?

CHAPTER XXI

THE DOGMAS OF THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

WE have said that the Oecumenic Councils were the official source from which emanated the dogmas of the ancient Churches. The Latin Catholic, otherwise the Roman, Church is the one which has known best how to turn that tradition to account. She accepts as valid twenty Oecu menical Councils, beginning with the one of Nicaea in the fourth, and ending with the Vatican Council in the nineteenth, century. The By zantine, otherwise the Greek Orthodox, Church ceased sooner to lay down dogmatic decisions. She accepts as valid only seven Councils, the second of Nicaea, \vhich was held in the eighth century, being the final of the series. The Ar menian Church is even more radical in this re spect. She acknowledges as lawful only the first three, which were equally recognised by both the Latins and the Greeks. She denies the oecumenic character of the remaining four, against the views of the Greeks and the Latins, and of the thirteen which are accepted by the Latins alone. The Councils of the Armenians are those of Nicaea and of Constantinople, held in the fourth, and that of Ephesus, in the fifth, century. We have referred, in the historical portion of this work, to the dissensions which were stirred up in connection with the fourth Council, that of Chalcedon.

102 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

It is necessary to recognise that every dogma with its mysteries constitutes a difficulty for the human understanding. And, seeing that the Christian religion, which we profess, imposes on it such a strain, to which it is our duty to sub mit, it is but wise that we should never overtax the difficulty. It is never wise, we assert, to increase needlessly the burden of mysteries, nor the number of dogmas, nor that of Councils. No one will dispute what we say on this point, especially at this critical hour of stress that the faith is going through.

If we wished to express, in the shape of a mathematical formula, the difference there is in the number of dogmas adopted by the Armenian, Greek, and Latin Churches respectively, we should be able to make good the following proportion : ARM. : GRC. : LAT. : : 3 : 7 : 20. Obviously, this is all to the credit of the Armenian Church. We think that it would be appreciated as it de serves if it were sufficiently understood by those who apply themselves to ecclesiastical questions. For instance, we have taken the opportunity of referring the point to a European diplomatist. Having asked him his opinion on the point, he made no difficulty in acknowledging that the advantage lay in having the least possible number of dogmas. We think that this testimony in favour of the Armenian Church will be confirmed by all men of sense.

If, by a happy chance, the chief ancient Churches ever succeed, we do not say by amalga mating into complete unity, but at all events by establishing among themselves a mutual un derstanding, they would, most certainly, be able to find the best foundation for an agreement only on the basis of that Church. A closer connection is only possible when it rests on a position which

THE DOGMAS 103

is free from controversy ; a minimum of condi tions is of assistance in eliminating discords.

The small number of dogmas which is peculiar to the Armenian Church must not be ascribed to mere chance, or to a result which has not been weighed. It is the outcome, above all things, of a sober principle in matters of doctrinal regulation. We have laid down the principle that the chief basis of the authority of Oecumenic Councils lay in unanimity of the various Churches ; for, by that alone are expressed effectively and truly the views of the Universal Church. That unanimity had been practically realised in the three Councils summoned from 325 to 431, that is to say, in the course of the century which kept pace with the Church's triumph. During that period all the great Churches were of one mind as to the way in which dogmas should be understood. Where opinions differed — and there were many such cases, as with the Arians — these were only the opinions of in dividuals, and were never brought forward as the general opinion of a given Church. It will be noticed, too, that during this early period there were no disputes among the Churches, either re garding precedence or authority. The situation changed, however, totally after the third Council, when the antagonism of the patriarchal sees began to prepare a fertile field for dogmatic ques tions. Each patriarchate, in turn, summoned a general Council in opposition to another. Such was the case when the question relating to the nature of Christ was raised. The opinion, based on the tradition of the entire Alexandrine Church, was set aside by the Roman and Byzantine patri archates combined, and they had the support of the emperor Marcian. During the period of half a century there were unfolded declarations of a most contradictory type on the authority of the

104 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

Council of Chalcedon, the fourth Oecumenic Coun cil of the Greeks and the Latins. It is not, there fore, without reason that the Armenian Church has thought it her duty to look upon the Council of Ephesus of 431 as the last whereby the unani mity of the Churches was maintained, in the conviction that we have in it the true traditional groundwork of the Universal Church.

One other reason for rejecting the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon was the very object it had of laying down dogmatic definitions. That object should have restricted itself to affirmation, and not the explanation of a given truth. The three earlier Councils complied with this rule by proclaiming the divinity of Jesus Christ, the divinity of the Holy Ghost, and the union of the divine and human natures in Christ. The essential truths, on which were based the dogmatic con stitution of the Christian mysteries, that is to say, the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Redemption, had been perfected by the definitions of the three Councils. Breaking with this rule, we see the Council of Chalcedon entering on a path of ex planations, and endeavouring to determine the circumstances either of the form or mode, and not the essence, of the incarnation, or of the union of the divinity and the humanity in Christ. But it is impossible that the explanation of a dogmatic fact should become the object of a definition or the substance of a dogma. Explanations can only assist us by providing material for study. The duty, therefore, of explaining dogmas de volves, not on Oecumenic Councils, but on schools and doctors of divinity. The authority of the Universal Church cannot be called upon to per form the part of a scholastic faculty.

CHAPTER XXII

THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

IN the early centuries the profession of faith in each Church was expressed by an official formula : the Symbol or Creed. The Latin Catholic Church retains still in her liturgy a short creed known by the name of the Apostles' Creed, but it is want ing in all the characteristics of an official declara tion in the matter of faith. The Councils and the popes were in the habit of constantly remodel ling the creed, with the sole object of suiting it to their dogmas, which they produced one after another according to their requirements. The Vatican Council, in 1870, also added new expres sions to it. But it was the Council of Trent especially which most of all enlarged the limits of dogmatic canons. It has had the making of all those theological and scholastic opinions, as well as those rigid dogmas, which it has laid down, and which are forced on one to believe under pain of anathema ; and all this has been done with the sole purpose of enhancing the papal authority. So that the Roman Catholic, hemmed in on all sides, is able at the present time, neither to discover a loophole whereby he can bring to the light his own personal opinions, nor a clear field for enlarging the horizon of his studies. What should he do ? even to think is forbidden him. He is obliged to give up his reasoning powers, nay, even the free exercise of his intelligence, for he

105

io6 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

cannot take a step without running foul, on his path, of the inevitable dogmatic canon, which puts a stop to his inquiries. The recent syllabus, levelled against the Modernists, is but a bid for that position without any escape. Under the term modernists it stamps all men of science, as well as ecclesiastical scholars, who are endeavour ing to break down the cramped circle of the canons of the Councils and the decisions of the popes. It may be said that the last encyclical of Rome has definitely pronounced the divorce between her Church and science.

Now, there can be no occasion for anything of this nature within the pale of the Armenian Church. Of a truth, she, too, has her national synods, and she does not fail to lay down her decisions on doctrinal matters. Nevertheless, she never sets forward the claim to ascribe validity to dogmas, nor does she condemn as heretics or schismatics those who would not conform to the teaching of her doctrines. All the doctrinal points which fix a line of demarcation between the Armenian and the other Churches, and which are in no way designed to trespass on the preroga tives of these latter, are so many instances which corroborate our statement.

The Armenian Church only recognises Councils to be truly oecumenic, and having the authority to pronounce dogmatic definitions, which embrace all branches of Christianity, assembled together in accordance with a revealed principle. Such a unanimity will never present itself again after the split of the fifth century, and we would add that it cannot recur so long as the disputes which divide the Churches endure.

The creed adopted by the Armenian Church, for its offices, is the Athanasian formula, which had its beginning during the Council of Nicaea. It

THE PROFESSION OF FAITH 107

contains almost exclusively the dogma of the In carnation, which she preserves with neither modi fication nor addition. However, this same Church possesses a second creed, which was drawn up later and is represented in the ritual. It is recited by the clergy on the occasion of their ordination ; but it differs from the former only in amplifying the formulas, the chief of which relates to the natures of Jesus Christ.

That formula should be deemed sufficient for the purpose of rebutting the imputation of Euty- chianism, once maliciously or thoughtlessly made against the Armenian Church. The interpreta tion in question consists in the expression One nature united (in Armenian : Miavorial mi bnouthiun). Eutyches treats of a blend and a confusion of the two natures, which result in the individual unity of Christ ; whereas the unity of nature, or the monophysitism, which is accepted by the Armenian Church, is identical with the Ephesian formula, which is that of St. Cyril : One nature of the Word Incarnate, If, in the mystery of the Incarnation, the divinity and the humanity — that is to say, the two natures — had preserved their duality, that circumstance would have been fatal to the virtue in the passion of Jesus Christ, who is in the character of one indivisible Person, God and Man ; and, as affecting the Redemption, the self-same reason suffices. Were it not so, we would find ourselves landed in the doctrine of Nestorius. Of all the kinds of union which, in our opinion, could be compared with the supernatural union of Christ, that of the union of mind and of body seems to supply us with the best explanation. For one cannot deny the unity of human nature, in spite of the distinction between the mind and the body. Such, therefore, is the monophysitism of the Council

io8 THE CHURCH OF ARMENIA

of Ephesus, which the Armenian Church upholds, and which is altogether different from that of Eutyches. The name of the latter is officially and solemnly anathematised by the Church, under the same head as those of Arius, of Macedon, and of Nestorius. No one can, therefore, accuse this Church of Eutychianism without incurring the reproach of ignorance or of dishonesty.

With regard to the differences which divide the Armenian and the Greek orthodox Churches, these apply solely to the rejection by the former of the Council of Chalcedon, and in the non- recognition of the succeeding Councils. On all other dogmatic questions, the two Churches are in perfect accord. For it behoves us to declare that if the Councils which are in question have not been recognised by the Armenian Church, nevertheless the points which were determined by them have never been rejected ipso facto. For instance, the condemnation of the Three-Chapters, pronounced by the fifth Council, which was but a return to the decrees of Ephesus, may be looked upon as favourable to the doctrine of the Ar menian Church. The question of monothelitism (one will in Christ's two natures), which was handled at the sixth Council, was on the other hand a repetition of the Chalcedonian policy. The worship of images, dealt with at the second Council at Nicaea, aimed only at a point which bore rather a ceremonial than a doctrinal aspect. Without being altogether banished from the Armenian Church, this worship has ever been confined to the narrowest limits. Statues are debarred, as they are the reminders of ancient idolatry. With regard to pictures and bas-reliefs, they are blessed and anointed with the holy oil, in order to differentiate them from ordinary works of art ; and it is only after their consecration that

THE PROFESSION OF FAITH 109

they are placed over the altars. Contrary to the practice of other communions, which decorate the interiors of their houses with icons, the Armenian possesses no holy images.

As to the expression of dogmas, this Church holds strictly to the ancient formulae ; she therefore no more admits the addition of the Filiogue, the particular judgment, the pains of purgatory, the immediate beatific vision, than she does transubstantiation, the indulgences, and the papal theory. All these innovations could only have been accepted by the Latin world by an improper interpretation of the practices of the primitive Church.

It is with simpleness of purpose and a minimum of encumbrances that the Armenian Church has steered her course in the matter of dogmas. The lofty principle expressed by a learned divine of the Western Church, but of which that Church has been neglectful, has been and ever remains the watchword of our Church. The expression Unitas in necessariis (Unity in essentials) has been brought by her to a point of the most stringent necessity ; that of Libertas in dubiis (Liberty in doubtful matters) she has applied in the broadest of senses ; and it is only on the basis indicated by common sense that it will be possible, to our thinking, of ensuring to the Universal Church the Charitas in omnibus (Charity in all things).

CHAPTER XXIII

THE SPIRIT OF TOLERANCE

THE Latin Catholic Church, whose spirit of ex- clusiveness is well known, proclaims the intolerant axiom that whoso is beyond the pale of the Roman Church has no part in eternal salvation. The Greek Orthodox Church, on her side, refuses to allow the sacraments to be administered where there is no strict conformity with her own prac tices, so much so that she is obliged to resort to re-baptism and re-ordination. So that these two Churches, which have adopted the stately names of Catholic and Oecumenic, as a proof of their universality, are, in fact, isolated and confined within the circle of their