The Armenian church claims to be apostolic in its origin, Christianity
having been introduced into Armenia by the Apostles, and having
survived the persecutions of heathenism during the first three
centuries, had finally, about the end of the third century, subdued the
entire nation. As has been said before, St. Gregory the Illuminator
was sent to Cæsarea, Cappadocia, to be, and was, ordained Bishop of
Armenia, A.D. 302.
The Armenian church, therefore was and still is, a national church;
the prosperity of the nation also was the prosperity of the church.
The nation had but little rest after her embrace of Christianity.
Christian Armenia, during the first three centuries of her acceptance
and existence as a Christian state, however, made such a noble
defense of her faith against Zoroastrianism that the latter was
completely paralyzed, and no longer able to lift up the sword against
the followers of Christ. But with the rise of Mohammedanism, a more
formidable, cruel, unjust, and inhuman enemy arose. The Saracens
or the Arabs, who were both the soldiers and missionaries of the
Mohammedan faith, literally panted after the blood of the Christians.
Even these, after sucking all the blood that they could imbibe, fell
off like swollen leeches and were swallowed up by the Seljukian,
Tatar, and Mongolian Turks, who surpassed even the Arabs in cruelty
and indisputably deserved to be called “the unspeakable Turk.” The
Greeks, with all their subtility, volatility, perfidy, intrigues, and
intolerable bigotry, could do no more than to cause some of their
formalism to creep into the Armenian church.
But this is not all; for while the Armenians were driven into the
mountainous districts of Cilicia, the land of the brave apostle Paul,
by the Mongolian and Tatar invaders who spread desolation, destruction,
and death wherever their feet touched the soil, there came with
the appearance of the Crusaders into the East a number of zealous
missionaries of the Romish church, who neglected even to attempt a
quiet missionary work among the Mohammedans, but insidiously first,
then openly, tried to bring the Armenian church into a subordination
and under the jurisdiction of the popes of Rome.
The papal missionaries, under the order of the Unitors, who had
insidiously sown the seeds of dissension in the Armenian church,
availed themselves of every misfortune that befel the people, and
later, being augmented by the Jesuits and their intrigues, until about
the beginning of the eighteenth century, they converted this dissension
into a volcanic eruption. Consequently thousands of the Armenians
avowed their spiritual allegiance to the pope of Rome.
The following is from a French writer:
“Fortunately for the Catholics, they found a powerful
protector in DeFeriol, the French ambassador, who
obtained an order from the Porte, in 1703, for the deposition
and banishment of the (Armenian) patriarch
Avedik. Exiled to Chios, he was clandestinely carried
off during the passage and conducted, some say to Messina,
others to Marseilles, and thence to the Island of
St. Marguerite, where he died of martyrdom. There were
strong grounds for suspecting the Jesuits established
in Chios and Galata of having contrived this plot in
concert with the French ambassador.”[53]
The Mohammedan rulers always dealt with their Christian subjects with
the utmost contempt, unmodified injustice, and with relentless cruelty
and persecution. Many of the people did undoubtedly delude themselves
with the idea that by uniting with the Romish church they would secure
protection from the Turkish cruelty and oppression, through the
influence of Romish France, which was then more influential in the
East. For it is quite improbable that they could believe that the Roman
church was any better in simplicity and purity than the Armenian church.
Returning to the history of the Armenian church from the schism in the
church, it may be well to state that for over half a century (302-363)
it was the custom of the Armenian bishops to be ordained at Cæsarea,
Cappadocia, but during the patriarchate of Nerses the Great, the clergy
and laity unanimously agreed to have their bishops ordained in Armenia
by the Armenian bishops. It is therefore evident from this fact that
there was no higher rank or order than that of a bishop or presbyter,
which names are interchangeably used in the New Testament as Vartabed
(doctor) M. Muradian, of St. James’ Monastery at Jerusalem, correctly
states in his “History of the Apostolic Church of Armenia.”[54] It
may also be interesting to add as a fact of history that in the time
of St. Gregory and his successors for several centuries, the bishops
were married and heads of families. Celibacy was not required of them,
neither separation, but it was optional with them to choose either or
none.
“The election of the bishops, like that of all the Armenian clergy,
takes place by universal suffrage,” the ordinations take place
generally at either Etchmiadzin, Akhtamar, or Sis, by the presiding
bishop and his associates. The priests or presbyters (Yeretzk) are
chosen by the people among themselves. They are expected to have
tolerable knowledge of the Bible and the liturgy of the church (some
in former years knew very little of either) and are ordained by the
bishops. The priests live with their families among the people and
attend their daily duties in the church services morning and evening;
they perform baptism for the infants, and marry and bury the young and
old as the occasion may require.
“The Armenian clergy receive no stipends, and exact no contributions
like those of the Greek church; their revenues depend entirely on the
voluntary contributions of the faithful; it is therefore rare to meet
with a wealthy priest, though some few were in easy circumstances.
With respect to morals, also, though it is difficult to pronounce
absolutely on the subject, the Armenian clergy appear to be very
superior to the Greeks.”[55] The deacons are elected and ordained
like the priest, and have no income whatever; they serve the church
and assist the priests in the daily ministrations and attend to their
business, whatever it may be.
There is another class of the clergy of the Armenian church called
_Vartabeds_, or doctors in theology. It is very probable that the very
necessity of the case created this order. In former years, after the
conversion of the Armenians to Christianity, most of the literary men
were of the clergy, and the monasteries became the seats of learning.
Those who loved a literary life would retire to those places and pursue
such a course. Asceticism of the East also must have played a good part
in it. Those who were ordained evangelists to visit the churches and
to preach the gospel to the people, who were so often persecuted and
oppressed by their enemies, at first, most likely voluntarily preferred
celibacy in order to devote their whole time to the work of the church.
But what was with them optional has become now a condition for that
order, though “the Vartabeds form the most enlightened and learned
portion of the Armenian clergy,” from whom the bishops are elected and
ordained, are unfortunately “restricted to celibacy.”
“The monks or celibate priests are, I believe, always connected with
convents, they are known under the style of _Vardabets_ or doctors,
this title being attached to their individual names. They are governed
according to the rule of St. Basil of Cæsarea, the contemporary and
monitor of the Armenian pontiff, Nerses the Great (A.D. 340-374).
They do not practice the tonsure, and they wear their beards. They
are attired in long black robes with conical cowls.... At present
there are in all not more than some fifty Vardabets within the wide
limits of the Russian province (of Armenia). Of these about half
reside at Edgmiatsin.... All monks in Russian territory are ordained
at Edgmiatsin, and it is the custom for all bishops, whether in
Russian Armenia, or abroad, to be consecrated in the Church of the
Illuminator.”[56]
The Armenian church differs from that of Rome on the following points:
(1) It denies the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. (2) It has not
accepted the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon as ecumenic. (3) It
rejects the introduction of filioque into the creed, but admits that
the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. (4) It rejects the Romish
doctrine of purgatory. (5) It rejects indulgences. (6) It has no
equivalent word for Transubstantiation. (7) It does not withhold the
Bible from the people, but encourages them to read it.
In the very year while the Armenians were alone fighting with the
Persians in defense of Christianity, and the verdant fields of
Ararat were dyed with the blood of the martyrs, the Greek and Latin
theologians were holding their council at Chalcedon, engaging the
influence of the Emperor to condemn Eutychus. He had gone to the other
extremity of the question with regard to the person of Christ, for
which Nestorius had been condemned in the previous council (at Ephesus
A.D. 431). The latter was supposed to teach two personalities in
Christ, on account of his emphasizing the distinctive characteristics
of Christ’s divine and human nature. Eutychus was condemned because
he made the divine nature of Christ to absorb his human nature, he,
therefore, was called a monophysite.
The Armenians did not accept the decision of the Chalcedonian council,
not because they were in sympathy with Eutychus’ doctrine, but because
the question did not concern them. Moreover some other questions
decided in that council were objectionable. “From the council of
Chalcedon to the death of Boniface II, bishop of Rome, was a period of
rivalry for sole dominion in the church between the patriarchs of Rome
and Constantinople. By the council they had been recognized as entitled
to higher honors than the rest. From that date it became an object
of ambition with both to secure, each for his own self, the admitted
title of sole superiority.”[57] Such being the case the decision of the
council of Chalcedon is like the Mohammedan creed, part truth and part
lie. The Armenians had already accepted the truth. They were satisfied
with the orthodoxy delivered to them by the teachings of the Apostles
and the three former councils, held at Nice A.D. 325; at Constantinople
A.D. 381; and at Ephesus, A.D. 431. The pity of it all is that the
Greek and Latin writers represented and condemned the Armenians as
Monophysites and the Armenian church was cut off from the Western
(Latin) and the Eastern (Greek) Churches.
The following is from the long defense and confession of the Synod
of the Armenian bishops who answered the Persian grand vizier,
Mihrenerseh, in A.D. 450, a year before the Council of Chalcedon: “He
(Christ) was in reality God and in reality man. The Godhead was not
withdrawn through the human nature, nor was the human nature destroyed
by his remaining God; but he is both one and the same.”
Another writer says: “It is now evident that the Armenian church, of
St. Gregory, wholly rejects the heresy of Eutychus, condemned by the
council of Chalcedon; and she does so as much as the Eastern (Greek)
church.”[58] Though this charge of heresy brought against the Armenian
church by the Greek and Latin churches was absolutely unfounded, yet
it was a fertile source of much trouble, oppression, persecution, and
bloodshed, and almost the sole occasion of the overthrow of the last
two Armenian dynasties.
The influence of the Greeks in the Grecian provinces of Armenia
often outweighed in appointing a bishop over the Armenians, who
would be favorably inclined to the acceptance of the decision of the
Chalcedonian council and some other rites of the Greek Church. Such
appointments often took place and furnished new sources of dissensions
and contentions among the clergy and laity. The Greeks, taking
advantage of such internal contentions, did their best to unite the
Armenian church with the Greek church, but they invariably failed. “The
more attractive the offer of the Greeks, the greater grew the hatred of
them; nor have the popes met with better success. When we reflect that
this obstinate people are as intelligent as any in the world in various
pursuits of civilized life, our anger at such conduct, which gave away
the cause of civilization, may be tempered by a different feeling. The
Armenians have fought at all hazards to preserve their individuality,
and the bulk of the nation have perished in the attempt. The remnant
may be destined, like the son of Anak, to redress the wrongs inflicted
by their ancestors upon the common Christian weal.”[59]
The Armenians have fought at all hazards not only to preserve their
individuality, but especially to preserve their church from an
ecclesiastical vassalage. They fought for principle, not for policy.
Their descendants seem to have inherited the same spirit. On account of
their adherence to principles of right and justice, they are brought
to the very verge of national annihilation. It is not the Armenians
of the past or the present that have inflicted wrongs upon the common
Christian weal, but on the contrary, the so-called Christian nations of
the past and the present are responsible for the wrongs that have been
inflicted upon the defenseless Armenians.
It is the shallow and narrow-minded student of history and
Christianity, who, seeing the great Christian nations at war says:
Christianity has failed as a religion, or as a civilizing force. It is
not the fault of Christianity, it is the lack of it. As it is now, so
it was in the past. Had the Greeks the true spirit of Christianity, or
even had they some far-sighted statesmen, they would have encouraged
and strengthened the Armenians on the east, instead of weakening and
hastening the overthrow of the Armenian independence. They could have
made them like a strong stone wall against the Mongolian hordes, who
not only swept over Armenia, but within a short time swept and reduced
the Eastern empire. The City of Constantine the Great became for
centuries the seat of the assassins.
Towards the end of the seventh century the Greeks invaded Armenia,
devastated twenty-five provinces and carried away eight thousand
families into captivity. Not very long after this event the Saracens
invaded the country again and secured the entire subjugation of the
people. The news of this event enraged the Greek emperor Justinius II
again, who with an immense army attacked the Armenians and captured
the prelate Isaac and five other bishops. After receiving a sufficient
number of hostages, he left the prelates alone and returned to
Constantinople.
It was only a few weeks after this that the Saracens, under the
leadership of Abdullah, returned to Armenia and fell upon the people
and plundered the churches and monasteries, and desecrated the sacred
edifices and the unfortunate prelate Isaac was carried to Damascus in
chains, where he ended his eventful life of martyrdom while a prisoner.
Isaac was succeeded by Elias, the archbishop of Armenia, and Gashim
was appointed by the Caliph governor of the country. Gashim was by no
means inferior in cruelty to the previous Arab generals. In fact, all
the followers of Mohammed, from the beginning well learned the behest
of their lord, “To do aught good never will be your task, but to do
evil ever your sole delight.” Gashim gathered all the leading men into
the church of Nachichavan, on pretense of making a treaty of peace with
them; he then set the church on fire and burned them alive.
The orthodoxy of the Armenian church would not have been questioned by
some of the Western writers had they not drawn their information from
the Greek and Latin sources only. This could not have been avoided in
the early years of the middle ages on account of the scarcity of the
Armenian scholars among the Western nations. Even now the Armenian
language is studied by very few. Yet a careful and happy writer, like
the following, is apt to avoid mistakes: “In points of doctrine and
ritual the Armenian church is extremely conservative, and has been wise
or fortunate enough to avoid defining her faith with the particularity
which had produced so many schisms farther west. Her formulas do not
commit her to Monophysite views, although, chiefly owing to a national
jealousy of Constantinople, she has refused to accept the decrees of
Chalcedon.... She has avoided the use of any word corresponding to the
term Transubstantiation....”[60]
The following, from “the History of the Holy Apostolic Church of
Armenia,” by Vartabed M. Muradian, of St. James’ Monastery, at
Jerusalem, may show the orthodoxy of the Armenian Church:
“It is sweet and comforting to discourse on the revealed truths of the
Bible which is the only foundation of undefiled doctrine, to which
always have the holy church-fathers trusted for the defense of faith.
“The Bible teaches concerning God two things: first that God is one
and there is no other God beside Him; second, that divine nature is
common to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, and these
three persons have one Godhead. This is the faith of the Christians
in harmony with the manifest words of the Bible. This Trinity is the
foundation of the Christian faith, and the three persons have one
influence for our salvation, but in different ways of manifesting it;
that is, the Father calls and causes us to approach His Son, whom
He begat from eternity and prepared His coming. The Son came from
heaven and was united with human nature that He might save us from
sin and give us eternal life. The Holy Spirit is our regenerator, Who
re-establishes in us the likeness of God, making us receptive of the
Salvation offered by God.
“The Bible teaches that Christ, on account of His eternal generation
from the Father, is called the Son of God, but for His incarnation in
time, the Son of Man, brother of men, through whom we obtain the right
to call God our Father, and for this reason the Church confesses in
the personality of Christ two natures, the _divine and the human_,
distinct and inseparable in their union. This mystery of incarnation
is the great mystery of God’s love for the world; and as much of this
is incomprehensible and inconceivable by human intelligence, so much
is it natural with divine love and omnipotent nature. In this great
mystery was the salvation of mankind, for this the entire humanity
waited, and, therefore, the law and the prophets in this mystery of
incarnation were fulfilled. Because Christ, as the true Messiah,
performed prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices, and became for
us the _true Prophet_, _true Priest_, and _true King_; teaching the
doctrine of redemption, elucidating the past, the present, and the
future of mankind, forgiving and redeeming us through the sacrifice of
Himself and reigning over us with a heavenly and spiritual kingdom.
“The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds and flows from the
Father, not as a common influence of God, but as a person of the Holy
Trinity, infinite, eternal, a true God. But with respect to us the
Holy Spirit is the Fountain of God’s union with man, and the seal by
which we are known as Christians; because without the Holy Spirit’s
dwelling in us, His help and guidance we are alive only (carnally),
for the Holy Spirit is co-worker with the Father and the Son for our
salvation; and as the manifestation of God through (or in) Christ to
the world is called REDEMPTION, so also the revelation of God through
the Holy Spirit is denominated REGENERATION and SANCTIFICATION.
“At this present day there is not a book like the Bible from which
the intellectual world has been able to derive so much good for the
real well-being and progress of human society. There is not a book,
and cannot be, that is translated into so many languages and is
distributed so extensively as the Bible. Our immortal translators
felt this great want and they began the first step of the nation’s
enlightenment and progress by the translation and study of the Holy
Scriptures, and this translation is so choice, that with various
praises bestowed upon it by the European scholars of the present
century, who know the Armenian language, it is called the ‘_Queen
of Versions_.’ But we will be giving a still greater praise to
our forefathers if we generalize the study of the Holy Scriptures
among our people and rear the edifice of education upon that solid
foundation of the Word of God.”[61]
By no means should the reader think that the writer is partial in not
telling something of the superstitions, formalism, and ignorance still
in existence and practice among the Armenians and in their church.
These have often been written and spoken of, even with a great deal
of lack of knowledge and charity. Had those writers on these aspects
of the Armenian Church and people remembered that for almost sixteen
centuries this Church has been in constant conflict with paganism,
Zoroastrianism, Mohammedanism, and the evil influences of the so-called
other Christian Churches, they would not have been so severe in their
denunciations of that old relic of the ancient Christian Church.
Often were the bishops and priests in the battlefield with their
flocks against the enemy of the Church. Often were they in chains,
in imprisonment, in hostage at the pagan, Mohammedan and so-called
Christian Courts; often were they carried away into captivity and
massacred by their captors because they would not denounce their faith
in Christ. In the massacre of 1895-6 not one out of one hundred and
seventy Armenian priests and twenty-one Protestant Armenian ministers,
who were cruelly butchered by a slow torture for their faith, was
willing to exchange his Christian faith for his life. The same was
true for centuries. How could they give more attention than they did
to the education and enlightenment of their people and to the purity
of the Church? Even to-day the best intellects of the Armenian church,
the educators and lovers of reform and the purity of the Church and
the people have been butchered by the unspeakable Turks with the
consent of their allies or have chosen voluntary exile. Certainly these
circumstances will not justify the condition of the church, but they
ought to modify the severity of our judgment and fill us with a deeper
sympathy, with a truer Christian love and activity for its reform,
purity, and spiritual prosperity. (See Chapter XV.)