it is not easy to avoid the conclusion that the laity were in a state of lamentable ignorance. When we see whole churches. passing from orthodoxy to Arianism, and again from Arianism to orthodoxy, in the course of a few years, it is not uncharitable to infer their indifference to both creeds, or, at least, their want of a right perception of the importance of the points at issue.

It has long been a question keenly agitated, whether the Platonic philosophy was not the true parent of the Arian heresy. The discussion is still pursued, in our own times, with all the keenness that belongs to a party strife, the point which it involves being the purity of the ante-Nicene Church. However, it will not be denied that the writings of Plato were held, even from the second century, in high admiration with some of the fathers; or that a large body of "Platonists" existed within the Church itself, who openly avowed that the germs of Christianity lay hid in the writings of the great philosopher; that Christianity was, in fact, a development of Platonism. It was a frequent practice, even with those of the fathers of reputed orthodoxy, to present Divine truth, as far as possible, under the disguise of the Greek philosophy, rather than with the simplicity of Christ. Dr. Newman, in his learned history of the Arians, admits the fact, and suggests the following excuses for it :"The reasons which induced the early fathers to avail themselves of the language of Platonism were various. They did so partly as an argumentum ad hominem; as if the Christians were not professing in the doctrine of the Trinity a more mysterious tenet than that which had been propounded by a great heathen authority; partly to conciliate their philosophical opponents; partly to save themselves the arduousness of inventing terms, where the Church had not yet authoritatively supplied them; and partly with the hope, or even belief, that the Platonic school had been guided in portions of its system by a more than human wisdom, of which Moses was the unknown but real source."

Arianism, properly so called, produced a multitude of sects, generally classed together as semi-Arians; these were the Eusebians, Aëtians, Eunomians, Acacians, Psathyrians, and others. They differed amongst themselves in assigning various degrees of exaltation to the second person in the Trinity; but all of them denied that he was ooúdios, consubstantial with the

Father. They disappeared with the parent heresy, and their history is not deserving of further notice. (See Eusebius's Life of Constantine; Valesius, de Vitâ Eusebii Cæsariens; Mosheim, Ecc. History; Blakey, Hist. Philosophy; Newman, Hist. of the Arians.

ARMENIAN CHURCH.-The Gospel was introduced into

Armenia at a very early period, probably in the days of the apostles; and, if not by themselves, at least by some of their numerous converts in the neighbouring provinces of Asia Minor. But the remoteness of their situation, inclosed with mountains, and bordering on the Caspian Sea, prevented their intercourse with the Churches of Greece and Asia, and has left us ignorant of their history in its first and purest days. Armenia was a wild and barbarous land; it is probable that the population was scanty and communication slow; for the climate is in many parts severe, and the snow rests upon the mountains in July. Thus, it was not till the fourth century that Christianity was established. Gregory, called the Enlightener, from having dispelled the darkness of the Armenian superstitions, converted Tiridates, the king, and his nobles, about the beginning of this century. The Greek Churches of Lesser Asia naturally became the model and the preceptor of the newly-converted kingdom; and Gregory was consecrated bishop of the Armenians by Leontius, bishop of Cappadocia. In the year 457, the great synod of Chalcedon, the fourth general or oecumenical council, was held; but from the disorders of their country, or their ignorance of the Greek tongue, the Armenian clergy were not amongst the four hundred and thirty bishops assembled. Yet from this period we must date the corruption of the Armenian Church, and its exclusion from the orthodox communion.

In the year 424, Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, first broached the doctrine, that in the Saviour of mankind there were not only two natures, as the orthodox doctrine teaches, but two persons; or a Divine person, taking up his abode in a human person. Nestorius was a prelate of high character, and of that intellectual subtlety which passed for the loftiest wisdom. He defended his position with great skill, and soon had many converts. To put an end to the controversy, a general council,

being the third so called, assembled at Ephesus, in 431. The famous Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, presided, who, in his haste to condemn Nestorius, refused to wait for the bishop of Antioch and a large body of eastern bishops who accompanied him. Nestorius was deposed, and his doctrines anathematized, but such a proceeding was not likely to restore peace to the distracted Churches; and, notwithstanding the decision of the council, Nestorianism continued to increase. It is the nature of all error to generate its opposite extreme. Amongst the opponents of Nestorius, one of the most zealous was Eutyches, chief, or archimandrite, of a monastery of three hundred monks, near Constantinople, who in opposing Nestorius fell into the opposite error, and denied not only the duality of persons in the Saviour, but the duality of natures too; maintaining that, in the person of Christ, the human nature and the Divine are one; the human being, as it were, absorbed into the Divine. This error is, perhaps, in its consequences more serious than the former; it seems, if followed out to its legitimate conclusions, to overthrow the atonement and the eternal priesthood of Christ. Eutyches, however, like Nestorius, had many followers, and his doctrine was formally condemned by the council of Chalcedon which assembled for that purpose. Still it continued to spread rapidly, and at this day all the Eastern Churches, except the Greek Church, are divided between the heresy of Nestorius on the one hand, and that of Eutyches on the other. The Armenian Church espoused the cause, and embraced the errors of Eutyches; so too did the Syrian or Jacobite, the Coptic, and the Abyssinian Churches. Eutychianism, it is true, so far as its name and the precise statements of its leader were concerned, was soon repudiated; but the radical error introduced by him retains its ascendancy in these four Churches, which are hence called Monophysite, or, sometimes, Monothelite; and of course they reject the decrees of the fourth general council.

Armenia has been one of the most unfortunate of nations; from the earliest period to the present time, as Gibbon has remarked, the theatre of perpetual war, and seldom permitted to enjoy even the tranquillity of servitude. Yet the zeal of the Armenians for their religion has never failed. Overrun successively by Seljucks, Mamluks, Ottomans, and Persians, they have always adhered with intrepid devotion to the ancient faith.

About the year 1605, Abbas Shah of Persia, carried away twelve thousand families to Ispahan, where many of their descendants are to be found. Except the Jews they are probably the most widely dispersed of any people under heaven. Their merchants are found in every European market, in all Asia, in India, at Singapore, and in the islands of the Eastern Archipelago. Still their impoverished country boasted, in the last century, a splendid hierarchy and comparatively rich endowments. It was governed by four patriarchs, of whom the chief, or catholicos, resided at Etchmiadzin. Subject to these were about sixty archbishops, who, again, governed their own suffragans and inferior clergy. A great taste for literature prevailed in Armenia during the period known in western Europe as the dark ages; and, until a recent period, there were several Armenian presses, conducted by themselves in various capitals. An Armenian Bible was printed at Amsterdam in the sixteenth century; several religious treatises were published at Marseilles for the use of this wandering people; and at Venice a congregation of Armenian monks has existed on the Island of St. Lazaro since 1715, who constantly issue works on literature, theology, and science, for the benefit of their own countrymen. In wealth and numbers the Armenian Church is still the most important of the Eastern Churches with the sole exception of the Greek Church. Until nearly the middle of the sixth century it remained in communion with this as the mother-church; but in 536, at a synod assembled at Therin by the patriarch Nerses of Ardhagar, the decree of the Council of Chalcedon asserting the two natures of Christ was formally condemned, and the Monophysite doctrine asserted, and thus it was the connection between the Armenian and the old Greek Church was dissolved.

In other respects the doctrines of the Armenian Church agree with those of the Greek Church. They deny that the Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son;" they intercede for the dead, maintain the invocation of the Virgin, and of saints and angels, and hold the cross in superstitious reverence. The common people, at least, believe it has power to intercede with God, and to protect from evil; and they make crosses in imitation of it in metal and other materials which are consecrated in water and wine. They frequently make the sign of the cross,

which they consider the mark by which Christ knows his sheep. They hold that in the Eucharist there is a transmutation of the elements into the real body and blood of Christ, and that this sacrament is a propitiatory sacrifice to God.

The catholicos or primate, resides at Etchmiadzin; an Armenian bishop resides at Constantinople, and another at the Armenian convent in Jerusalem. Each of these assumes the title of patriarch, though it is said they are not strictly such, but rather superior bishops, possessing certain privileges which the catholicos confers. Since, by the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, a large portion of Upper Armenia was ceded to the czar, the catholicos is a subject of Russia; which indeed exercises almost unlimited sway over both the Greek and Armenian Churches.

The see of Rome has always displayed great anxiety to obtain a footing amongst the Churches of the East. The exclusion of the Monophysites from the Greek communion seemed to lay them open to her missions; and we find that so early as the fourteenth century a Roman Catholic archbishop was sent to Armenia and fixed at Soldan with authority to govern the Church, by Pope John XXIII. The present Armenian Catholic Church was founded in this manner; and is, in fact, a branch of the Church of Rome. Of this communion, the Armenian Catholic patriarch, who resides at Constantinople, is the head under the pope. But the successes of the Church of Rome in the East are trivial: the proselytes acknowledge little more than a nominal dependence; and what influence she possesses has been obtained by many concessions, both in doctrine and in discipline to the prejudices of her oriental subjects. Amongst the latter may be named the title of Patriarch, which is unknown to the Western Churches, and which is here conceded to the head of the Romish Armenians.

It may be proper to mention here the labours of Protestant missionaries amongst the Eastern Churches. In the year 1841, the Anglican bishopric of Jerusalem was established with a view, not only to the conversion of the Jews, but also to the cultivation of friendly relations with the oriental Churches. The bishop, however, was instructed rather to attempt the spiritual improvement of these several communions than to make proselytes to the Church of England. The American Episcopal Church have had a missionary at Constantinople for the last eighteen years

VOL. I.

F