CHRISTIANITY IN TURKEY.
The Greek or Holy Orthodox Church—Its Character under Ottoman
Rule—Its Service to the Greek Nation—Superstitious Doctrines
and Rites—Improvement—Revenues—Bishops—Patriarchs—The Higher
Clergy—Schools—Parish Priests—Fatal Influence of Connection
with the State—Monasteries—Mount Athos—The Five Categories
of Monks—Government of the “Holy Mountain”—Pilgrims—The
Bulgarian Church—Popular Interest in the Church Question—Sketch
of the History of the Schism—The Armenian Church—St.
Gregory—Creed—Church Polity—influence of Russia—Contest between
the Czar and the Catholicos—Ritual—Clergy.
It has long been the custom to fling a good deal of contumely on the Holy
Orthodox or Greek Church. Judging from the descriptions of trustworthy
writers, from conversations I have often held with persons of authority
on the subject, and from personal observation, I feel convinced that
if part of the abuse heaped upon the Greek Church is well founded,
the greater portion is due to the rivalry and hatred of the Western
Church, and to the antipathy felt by the Reformed Church towards her
superstitions and formalities; but a still stronger reason may be found
in the errors the church still harbors, and in the ignorance in which
her clergy remained so long plunged. Taking this as a general rule, and
lamenting its consequences, we should on the other hand bear in mind the
great antiquity of the church and its early services to Christianity.
Some of its rites and ceremonies are certainly superstitious and
superfluous, but there is none of the intolerance of the Romish Church,
nor are religious persecutions to be laid to its charge. Its clergy,
stigmatized as venal and ignorant tools in the hands of the Turks, have
nevertheless had their virtues and redeeming points counterbalancing
their evil repute. The rivalry of the upper clergy originated principally
in the corrupt system of bribery pursued by them in their relations
with the Porte for the grant of _berats_ or diplomas installing the
Patriarchs in their respective seats, and the practice indulged in by
the Patriarchs of selling bishoprics at a price in proportion to the
wealth of the diocese. Yet in the midst of this darkness there were still
found men to carry on the work of culture and uphold the dignity of the
church. Nor have the Greek clergy always been the cringing servants
of the Porte, or the go-betweens of the Turks and the rayahs; in the
list of the Patriarchs we find many who, in the midst of difficulties
inevitable in serving a government foreign to their church and hostile
to the hopes and aspirations of their people, hesitated not in moments
of supreme need to sacrifice position, fortune, and even life, under
most horrible circumstances, for the sake of the church. With memories
of such martyrdoms ever present in the minds of a dependent clergy, it
is not surprising to find this section of the Greek nation apparently so
subservient to their rulers. The past, however, with all its blots, is
rapidly passing away; the rules now followed by the Patriarchate in fixed
salaries and written regulations with regard to certain contributions
have put an end to many former abuses. The theological schools, rapidly
increasing in number and importance in Turkey as well as in Greece,
have also a beneficial effect on the training of the clergy, who daily
attaining a higher standard in morality, mental development, and social
position, have of late years been enabled not only to maintain a more
determined and independent attitude before the civil authorities, but
also largely to increase their influence in promoting the education of
their flocks. The old class of clergy is dying out, and gradually a new
and different set of men is coming forward.
The commonest charge that is brought against the Greek Church is its
accumulation of superstitions. But the people are beginning to drop the
more absurd ceremonies and treat the more preposterous superstitions
with indifference. It is true that the church itself is not yet taking
the lead in this matter, as how should it? I have often talked on this
subject with ecclesiastics of the Eastern faith, and they admit both the
absurdity of many of the rites practised and the beliefs inculcated, and
also the tendency of the people to neglect these rites and to disbelieve
these superstitions; but they say that any action on the part of the
church would lead to the serious injury both of itself and the Greek
nation; for a general synod would have to be held to deliberate on the
necessary reforms; schisms would at once arise, and the Greek Church, and
hence the Greek nation, would be disintegrated. However, I believe there
are too many sensible men among the Greek clergy for this weak position
to be maintained long. The church must reform if it is to remain the
church of the Greeks.
At present, however, the priests are afraid to move. They dare not
admit the falsity of parts of their doctrine and the absurdity of their
practices, for fear of wider consequences. For example, a miraculous fire
is supposed to spring from the supposed tomb of Christ on Easter Sunday.
The Greek clergy do not actually assert it to be a miracle—at least not
to Westerns—but if questioned about it they invariably give an evasive
answer; and the priest still continues solemnly to light his taper from
the tomb and present it to the congregation saying, “Take, then, the
flame from the Eternal Light, and praise Christ who is risen from the
dead.”[38] A similar ceremony is observed on a small scale in every Greek
church at Easter, when the congregation light their tapers from the altar
and the same formula is used.
It is needless to say anything here about the doctrines of the Greek
Church: every one knows the insignificant differences which separate
it from the Church of Rome. The rites are less generally known; but
unfortunately they are too numerous and various to be described here. The
general impression produced by a Greek service is gorgeousness. The rites
are essentially Oriental, and have been little changed since the early
days of the Eastern Empire. The ceremonies are endless; fast and feast
days, with their distinctive rites, are always occurring, and though
generally disregarded by the upper classes are scrupulously observed by
the peasantry, to whom the fasts (on which they work as usual) cause
actual physical injury, and the feasts sometimes produce almost equally
disastrous effects. Some parts of the service are very beautiful and
impressive; but the prayers are generally intoned in a hurried and
irreverent manner, which renders them hard to be understood. These
things, however, are mending: the lower clergy pay more attention to the
ordinary rules of decorum in the conduct of the services, and bishops are
now not consecrated unless they are somewhat educated. Formerly the lives
of the saints were the topics of sermons, now they are becoming more
practical and exhortatory; but political subjects are strictly excluded.
Since the conquest the Greek Church and its clergy in the Ottoman Empire
have never been supported by the Government, nor have its ministers
ever received any grant either for themselves or the churches and
schools under their care. An imperial order confirms the nomination of
patriarchs, metropolitans, archbishops, and bishops. The last received
from each family in their diocese a portion of the produce of its
fields: from a peasant, for example, from half a kilo of corn and hay
to a whole kilo, according to his means. This was considered a loyal
donation from each household to its spiritual guide. Besides this the
archbishops enjoyed special benefits from the celebration of marriages,
funerals, and other religious ceremonies to which they were invited.
But unfortunately these emoluments eventually became subject to some
abuses, which excited murmurs from the community. Another custom was
that a bishop should receive from his diocese, at his consecration, a
sum sufficient to defray his immediate expenses during the first year.
This sum, as well as the offerings in kind, was fixed by the elders of
the town in which the metropolitan resided; the local authorities never
interfered in these arrangements, except when the bishops demanded their
assistance for the recovery of their dues. These usages continued in
force until 1860; Feizi Pasha and his two supporters, Ali Pasha and
Fouad Pasha, had previously tried every means to induce the Patriarch
of Constantinople and his Synod, together with the higher classes of
the Greek nation, to accept the funds of their church from the Ottoman
Government. The Porte, in order to obtain the end it had in view, showed
itself liberal by promising large fees to the higher clergy. But for
religious, political, and social reasons, the patriarch and the nation
in general rejected the proposal. After the Crimean War a Constitutional
Assembly, composed of bishops and lay deputies from all the provinces,
was convened by order of the Porte, to deliberate upon the settlement
of some administrative affairs connected with the œcumenical throne of
Constantinople, the cathedrals, and the bishops. This assembly also
regulated, among other things, the revenues of the patriarch and all the
archbishops. Each province, proportionately to its extent, its political
importance, and its Christian population, was ordered to pay a fixed sum.
The annual minimum is 30,000 piastres, and the maximum 90,000 piastres.
The patriarch receives thirty per cent on this. The fees fixed by the
elders of each province are paid annually by each family: the maximum of
this contribution does not exceed twenty piastres each, which, in the
aggregate, constitutes the revenues of the bishops and the pay of their
subordinates. The extra revenues are regulated in the same manner, the
ancient customs concerning their receipt having been abolished. The fees
and extra emoluments of the lower clergy of cities, towns, and villages
are received after the same fashion. An annual sum is paid by each family
to the priest, which in many villages rarely exceeds three or four
piastres. The archbishops also receive their stipend from their diocese,
and are very seldom obliged to request the assistance of the authorities,
who show great repugnance to interfering in the matter.
The social influence of a bishop proceeds from many circumstances. He
is considered the spiritual guide of all Orthodox Christians, presiding
over the vestry and corporation intrusted with public affairs—such as
schools, philanthropical establishments, and churches. He hears and
judges, conjointly with a council composed of laymen, all the dissensions
which arise between the members of the community. To a certain extent,
and when there is no intervention of the local courts, he judges in
cases of divorce, and in disputes relative to the payment of dowries,
as well as in cases of inheritance; but the local courts have the right
of interfering. In these cases the canonical laws are more or less well
interpreted according to the pleasure of the Kadi. The bishop judges all
that relates to the aforesaid cases in right of a privilege granted to
him by the patriarch. He can also decide other matters which belong to
the local courts in a friendly way when the disputants agree to it; but
when one of them appears dissatisfied he may refer it to the local court,
and the sentence or the bishop is nullified by that of this tribunal.
The bishop enjoys the political position of Ἐθνάρχη and permanent member
of the Government Council of the province. In addition to his spiritual
duties, in the fulfilment of which he has sometimes to call in the
assistance of the local authorities, the bishop acts as intermediary
between the Christians and the civil government when they ask for his
intervention and counsel. But this is not always successful, as the
bishop is invested with no regular power, and the local authorities, as
well as the central administration, make use of it as they choose and
when convenient to them, always acting for the direct interest of their
government.
In the Council the influence of the bishop is _nil_; for his vote, as
well as those of all the other Christian members, is lost in the majority
gained by the Mussulmans, to which is added the arbitrary influence of
the Pasha and the President. Very small benefit is derived from the
presence of these Christian representatives at the councils. Liberty
of speech, reasonable discussion, and all that might contribute to the
proper direction of affairs, are entirely unknown.
The Greek Church is governed by four patriarchs residing at
Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria; the last three are
equal and independent, but the authority of the first is supreme in the
regulation of spiritual affairs, and in his hands rests the power of
appointing, dismissing, or punishing any of the prelates. He is elected
by a majority of votes of a synod of the metropolitan and neighboring
bishops, and is presented to the Sultan for institution, a favor seldom
obtained without the payment of several thousand pounds—a long-standing
instance of the habitual simony of the Church. The Sultan, however,
retains the unmitigated power of deposing, banishing, or executing him.
These penalties were frequently inflicted in former times, but the
ecclesiastical body within the last half century has gained much in
influence and substance.
In spite of the general ignorance and corruption of the higher clergy
since the occupation of the country by the Ottomans, their ranks have
never lacked men who were as famous for their knowledge as for their
virtue and piety. There were many who shunned ecclesiastical dignity in
order to pass their lives in instructing the rising generation of their
time.
No religious schools then existed: the ecclesiastics received their
elementary education in the Ottoman establishments, and were subsequently
sent to the colleges of Germany or Italy to complete their studies. It
was only about the year 1843 that the first school for the teaching
of theology was founded in the island of Chalcis, so that most of the
present archbishops in the Empire studied there; but many priests still
go to Athens to complete their education. Schools were also established
for the lower clergy, but the teaching in them was so deficient that most
of the priests were sent to study only in the national schools, where
they learn next to nothing.
The higher ranks of the clergy are entirely recruited from the monastic
order: hence they are always unmarried, and hence the too often vicious
character of their lives. An attempt, partly successful, was made to put
some check upon their conduct by the law that no bishop or archbishop
can hold more than three sees during his lifetime. If, therefore, he
scandalizes the population of two dioceses, he is at least bound to be
prudent in the third.
No distinction exists between the priests of the cities and those of
the country villages. All are equal; nominated and elected in the same
manner; remunerated for their services after the mode already explained.
Nearly all of them are married; but those who are not stand on the
same footing as those who are. Historically, these parish priests have
done some service to the Greek nation: they helped to remind it of its
national existence, and by their simple, hard-working lives taught their
flocks that the Greeks had still a church that was not wholly given over
to cringing to the Turks, that had not altogether bowed the knee to
Baal. But that is all that can be said for them. It is impossible to
conceive a clergy more ignorant than these parish priests; they are not
only absolutely without training in their own profession, knowing nought
of theology, but they have not a common elementary education. If, on the
one hand, this ignorance puts them more on a sympathetic level with their
parishioners, it must not be forgotten that it renders them incapable of
raising their flocks one jot above the stage of rustic barbarism in which
they found them. There is no ambition (unlike the rest of the Greek race)
in these homely priests; for they cannot attain any high position in the
Church. Their association seldom benefits the people with much religious
instruction, for their studies are restricted to the external formalities
of their services. Many of the abuses attributed to them for exactions
are exaggerated: their condition of poverty and modest way of living, in
no way superior to the common people, is the best proof of this fact.
They are accused of bargaining for the price of performing certain rites,
but any abuse of the kind can be prevented by consulting the established
table of fees for all such matters; so that this infringement cannot be
carried on to any great extent.
There is no manner of doubt that the only hope for the Orthodox Church
lies in its separation from Moslem government. So long as its high
dignitaries have to purchase their appointments from Turkish ministers
and Sultans, so long will it retain its character for truckling and
corruption, so long will it lack the one thing needful in a church—moral
force. Not less are the lower clergy affected by this unhappy connection
between church and state. The government puts every obstacle in the
way of the establishment of schools for priests: it is aware that its
influence over the mass of the clergy can last only so long as that
clergy is ignorant and knows not the energy for freedom which education
must bring. Let the Church be severed from the control of the Porte,
let it be assured of the integrity of the Greek nation, and the end
of the necessity for conciliating the Turks, and then we may hope for
reforms—for the regeneration of the priesthood and the destruction of the
web of deadly superstition which it has so long found profitable to weave
round the hearts of the people.
Any account, however brief, of the Greek church would be very incomplete
without some notice of the monasteries which the traveller sees scattered
over the country in the most beautiful and commanding positions, perched
on the summit of precipitous rocks, on the steep slopes of hills, or
nestled in the shady seclusion of the glens. The most renowned are the
twenty monasteries of Mount Athos, called Ἅγιος Ὄρος, or Monte Santo. The
population of this peninsula is quite unique of its kind. The community
of monks is divided into five classes. The first comprises those who
are as it were independent, and are subjected to no severe rules. It
is impossible for a man without fortune to live in these monasteries,
because the common fund provides only the rations of bread, wine, oil,
etc. Every other outlay in the way of dress or the choice of better food
is at his own expense. Each prepares his meals in his cell and need
not fast unless he chooses, but cannot indulge in meat, as its use is
strictly prohibited.
Eight monasteries are called independent (Idiorrhythmic), on account
of the manner in which their occupants live. The greatest of these and
the first founded is Μεγίστη Λαὺρα, or Great Lavra: and the others
are Xeropotamu, Docheiareiu, Pantokratoros, Stavroniketa, Philotheu,
Iveron, and Vatopedi. But these monasteries occasionally change their
_régime_ from the stricter to the laxer discipline, or again from the
Idiorrhythmic to the Cenobite.
The second category comprises the monasteries in which the recluses live
in common. This life, which is one of great austerity, was founded
by the organizers of the religious orders of the Orthodox Church, and
represents, as nearly as possible, the rule of the ascetics of ancient
times. Community of goods is the regulation in these convents: all is
equal, frugal, and simple. There is but one treasury, one uniform, one
table, one class of food, and the discipline is very rigid. Whoever
wishes to enter one of these monastic establishments must give all that
he possesses in the way of money or raiment to the Father Superior
or chief elected by the members of the institution. The neophyte is
submitted to a year’s noviciate; and if, during this time, he can bear
the life, he is admitted into the order and consecrated a monk. If, on
the contrary, the rigid and austere life disheartens him, he is allowed
to retire. Each monk possesses a camp-bed in his cell, besides a jug
of water and his clothing; but he is strictly forbidden, under pain of
severe ecclesiastical punishment, to have money or any kind of food, or
even the utensils necessary for making coffee.
Should a monk find some object on his path, he is obliged to deliver it
to the Father Superior, to whom he ought to carry all his sufferings,
physical and moral, in order to receive consolation and relief. Every
monk belonging to this order must, without shrinking, execute the
commands of the Father Superior concerning the exterior and interior
affairs of the monastery. One third of the night is consecrated to prayer
in the principal church, where all the brotherhood are expected to
attend, with the exception of the sick and infirm. The ritual of prayers
is the same as in all the monasteries of Mount Athos, except those of the
communal ascetics. Vigils are very frequent, the prayers commencing at
sunset and continuing till sunrise.
The following may be mentioned as belonging to this class: St. Paul,
St. Dionysius, St. Gregory, St. Simopetra, and St. Panteleemon, called
the Russian monasteries on account of their being principally inhabited
by Russian and Greek monks. Xenophu, Konstamonitu, and Zographu, are
inhabited by Bulgarian monks, and Chilandari by Bulgarians and Servians.
The other monasteries are Sphigmenu, Karakallu, and Kutlumusi.
The third category is composed of monks who live in solitude. Their
rules resemble those already described, but they may be considered to
lead a life of still greater austerity. Their groups of small houses,
which contain two or three little rooms and a chapel, are called sketés
(σκητή); they are surrounded by gardens of about an acre in extent. In
the midst of these groups of, buildings is a church called Κυριακόν,
where mass is celebrated on Sundays and feast-days, at which service
all the monks are expected to be present; on other days they perform
their devotions in their own chapels. In each of these habitations two
or three monks lead a very frugal life; their food consists of fresh
or dry vegetables, which can only be prepared with oil on Saturday and
Sunday, when they are allowed to eat fish, but very seldom eggs or
cheese. The inhabitants of the σκητή support themselves entirely by their
manual labor; each monk is required to follow some trade by which he can
earn sufficient for his food and clothing. This consists mostly in the
manufacture of cowls, stockings, and other articles of dress, which are
sold in the neighborhood; with the addition of carvings in wood in the
shape of crosses, spoons, etc., with which a small commerce is carried
on with the pilgrims that visit the peninsula. Each σκητή ought to go to
Karias once a year, where a fair is held, to sell his wares, and with
the proceeds buy his supply of food. There are a great many monks who,
with the exception of this annual journey, go nowhere, and possess not
the remotest idea of what is passing in the world outside the restricted
limits of their mountain. On the whole, their life is a time of
continual toil in order to procure what is strictly necessary for their
support, and of endless prayer for the eternal welfare of their souls.
The fourth category comprises the recluses known as Κελλιώται. Their
pretty houses are sometimes sufficiently spacious and kept in good order.
Each contains from four to five rooms and a chapel, besides possessing
large extents of garden planted with vines, and olive and nut trees.
These dwellings are tenanted by five or six recluses, and belong to
convents that sell them to the monks. But the right of possession is not
complete, as the purchasers are subjected to the payment of a small rent,
and are not allowed to transfer their purchase to other persons without
the consent of the monastery. The buyer, being the chief of those who
live with him, considers them his servants or subordinates, and they can
acquire no privileges without long years of service. The Superior may
inscribe the names of two other persons on the title-deeds, who succeed
according to their order in the hierarchy. Such property is never made
over to persons of different religions, the law on this point being very
strict. A new regulation is, that no Greek monastery should be granted to
foreigners, such as Russians, Bulgarians, Servians, or Wallachians; as
they, being richer than the Greeks, might easily make themselves masters
of the whole.
The recluses live on the produce of their lands and seldom by the labor
of their hands. Many among them have amassed a little fortune by the sale
of their oil, wine, and nuts. Their mode of living and their food and
clothing are the same as in the other monasteries; their ritual is also
similar, with the exception that their devotions are performed with more
brevity.
Take away their solitary life and their continual prayers, and they then
might be considered as industrial companies belonging to the world.
The fifth category comprises the anchorites, whose rules are the most
sublime and severe. These holy men do not work, but pass their time
in prayer, the hard earth serves for their bed, and a stone for their
pillow; their raiment consists only of a few rags.
Never quitting their grottoes, they pass their days and nights in prayer;
their food is always dry bread, with fresh water once a week. If the
abode of the anchorite be situated in an inaccessible spot, he lets
down a basket, into which the passers-by throw the bread which is his
sole nourishment. Others have friends in some distant monastery, who
alone know the secret of their retreat and bring them provisions. These
solitary beings shun the sight and sound of man, their life having for
its sole object the mortification of the flesh, meditation, and prayer.
The population of Mount Athos is estimated at between six and seven
thousand souls, two-thirds of whom are Greeks from different parts of the
Ottoman empire, and the other third Russians, Bulgarians, and Servians.
Their government is a representative assembly in which deputies from the
twenty monasteries take part, except the σκητή and the κελλιώται, who are
dependants of the others. The twenty monasteries are divided into four
parts, which are again subdivided into five. Each year a representative
from each division is called upon to take part in the government of
the peninsula. Their duties consist principally in superintending the
police and the administration of justice. These four governors are called
_nazarides_, a Turkish word which signifies inspectors.
Twice a year regularly, and each time a serious case occurs, a kind of
parliament is called, consisting of the twenty deputies, who, with the
four nazarides, occupy themselves with current affairs and common wants.
Each monastery acts independently of the others in the administration
of its affairs. The chief inspector, judge, and spiritual chief, who
decides all disputes that arise in the monasteries is the Patriarch of
Constantinople. The authority of the Turkish government is represented
by a Kaimakam, who acts as intermediary between the parliament and
the Porte; he fulfils rather the duties of a superintendent than that
of a governor. There is also a custom-house officer to watch over the
importations and exportations of “The Holy Mountain.”
Some of the monasteries contain fine libraries and rich church ornaments,
which are the only wealth they possess. Each convent is under the
protection of a patron saint, who is generally represented by some
λείψανα, or relics. The anniversaries of these patron saints are held
in great veneration by the Greeks, crowds resorting to the convents to
celebrate them. Caravans may be seen wending their way along the mountain
paths leading to the convent, some mounted on horses or mules, some on
foot, while dozens of small heads may be seen peeping above the brims of
large panniers carried by horses. On entering the church attached to the
edifice the pilgrims light tapers, which they deposit before the shrine
of the tutelar saint, cross themselves repeatedly, and then join the rest
of the company in dedicating the evening to feasting and merry-making.
These gatherings, though blamable perhaps as being occasioned by
superstitious rites, are otherwise harmless, and even beneficial to
the masses; to the townspeople in the break in their sedentary habits,
and to the country-people in introducing among them more enlightened
and liberal ideas, and in facilitating social intercourse between them
in these Arcadian gatherings under the shade of spreading plane-trees,
and stimulated by the circulation of the wine-cup. I have often visited
these Panaghias and experienced real pleasure in witnessing the happy
gambols of the children and the gay dances and songs executed by the
young people, and in listening to the conversation or those of more
mature years. At meal times all the assembled company unite in an immense
picnic, feasting to their hearts’ content on the good fare with which
they come provided, and to the special profit of the numerous hawkers of
“_scimitiers_,” “_petas_,” parched peas, popped corn, stale sugar-plums,
gum mastic, fruits, flowers, little looking-glasses, rouge, etc.; the
last two articles for the benefit of the young beauties, who may be found
adding to their charms hidden behind the trunk of a tree. The merriment
is kept up to a late hour, and at dawn the slumberers are awakened by
the sound of the monastery bell calling them to mass. This is generally
read by the Egumenos, or Prior, except when the bishop of the diocese
is invited to celebrate it, in which case the ceremony is naturally
more imposing and the expenses incurred by the community increased to
a slight extent. Money, however, is not extorted from the worshippers,
each individual giving to the monastery according to his means and his
feelings of devotion. Kind and open hospitality is afforded to all by the
good monks, whose retired and simple mode of life receives no variety but
from these gatherings.
Women and animals of the feminine gender are not allowed to enter the
precincts of the “Holy Mountain.” This prohibition seems to be in some
way connected with the curiosity of Lot’s wife, whose punishment is
expected to befall the adventurous daughter of Eve who should thus
transgress. This superstition has, however, lost much of its force since
Lady Stratford’s visit to the monasteries during the Crimean War, when
some of the monks tremblingly watched for the transformation, till they
had the satisfaction of seeing her Ladyship quit the dangerous precincts
in the full possession of the graces that characterized her.
It is difficult to say whether the adoption of the Orthodox Creed by
the Bulgarians has been a blessing or a curse to them; for the friendly
union that sprang up from the assimilation of faith between the two
rival nations was not of long duration. Their amicable relations were
often disturbed by jealousies, in the settlement of which Christianity
was often used as a cloak to cover many ugly sins on both sides, and its
true spirit was seldom allowed free scope for its sublime mission of
peace, light, and charity. Religion was the subject that occupied, after
the Crimean War, the minds of the small enlightened class of the modern
Bulgarians, spread over all parts of Bulgaria, but existing in greater
numbers in the eyalet of Philippopolis, where the honest, wealthy, and
educated men who had in foreign lands imbibed the progressive ideas of
the day, raised their voices against the then subjected condition of
their church to that of Constantinople, and put forward a just claim for
its separation or independence. As already mentioned, the religious ties
existing between the Greeks and Bulgarians do not appear at any time to
have formed a bond of union between the two nations, or promoted social
or friendly feelings among them. After the Turkish conquest, Bulgarians
and Greeks, crushed by the same blow, ceased their animosity; but bore
in mind that one was to serve in promoting Panslavistic interests, and
the other those of Panhellenism. The proximity of these two distinct
elements, and the mixture of the one people with the other by their
geographical position, render the two extremely diffident of each other
and jealously careful of their own interests, although direct and open
action on either side has not been prominent.
The Bulgarians, during the 13th century, had separated themselves from
the Church of Constantinople. This was a serious measure which the
mother church naturally resented and used every means in her power to
abolish. In this she finally succeeded in 1767, when the Bulgarian Church
was once more placed under the immediate spiritual jurisdiction of the
See of Constantinople. The Bulgarian bishops were dismissed and their
dioceses transferred to Greeks, the monasteries seized and their revenues
applied to the Greek Church. This was doubtless an unjust blow which the
nation never forgot, nor did they cease to reproach the Greeks with the
injury done to them. The latter had, no doubt, a double interest in the
act, and the first and less worthy was the material profit the clergy
and Greek communities obtained by the appropriation of the Bulgarian
Church revenues. The second was a strong political motive; for the
right of possessing an independent Bulgarian Church and cultivating the
Bulgarian language meant nothing less than raising and developing the
future organ of Panslavism in districts the Greeks consider they have a
hereditary right to; their national interests were, in fact, at stake.
The men to whom was intrusted the duty of protecting these interests
were unscrupulous as to the means they used in the fulfilment of their
task, and a perpetual struggle ensued, resulting in persecution and
other crimes besides the unjust dealing with which the Bulgarians charge
their rivals. Both parties, from their own point of view, are right; and
there is nothing for them but to keep up the conflict till some decisive
victory, or perhaps arbitration, settles the dispute.
The Bulgarian Church question re-commenced in 1858 and lasted until
1872, during which time the bitter strife was renewed between the two
nations, inducing the Bulgarians to demand from the Porte the fulfilment
of the promises made in decreed reforms to guarantee liberty of religious
worship and the church reforms indicated in the Hatti-scherif of Gulhané.
These demands were just and reasonable, and at first limited to the
request that the Porte would grant permission that Bulgarians, or at
least men capable of speaking their language, should alone be appointed
bishops; that the service in their churches, instead of being performed
in the ancient Greek, a tongue unknown to the Bulgarians, should be
performed in the native language, and other similar demands, which the
Greek patriarch very unwisely refused to listen to. Previously to this,
in 1851, the Porte had obliged the patriarch to consecrate a Bulgarian
bishop.
In a church which the Bulgarians had erected by permission of the
Porte at Constantinople, in 1860, during the celebration of Easter,
the Bulgarian bishop, at the request of the congregation, omitted from
the customary prayer the name of the patriarch. This was the first
decisive step towards the accomplishment of the schism that took place
subsequently. The example set by this bishop was followed in many parts
of Bulgaria; occasionally the name of the Sultan was substituted for
that of the patriarch. The excitement this movement caused in Bulgaria
was intense, and acted upon the dormant minds of the people with a force
that pushed them at least ten years in advance of what they had been, and
opened their eyes to things they had failed previously to observe.
The Porte, alarmed by this sudden effervescence of public feeling in
Bulgaria, despatched the Grand Vizir on a tour in that country to study
the feeling of the people. At his approach the inhabitants of every
town flocked to his presence and brought their grievances under his
notice. The Vizir’s action was as just and impartial as circumstances
would allow; he listened to the grievances of the people, righted many
of their wrongs, imprisoned some officials and dismissed others; but,
notwithstanding, the Bulgarians failed to obtain on this occasion any
great material amelioration either of their condition or with regard to
the Church question.
At this stage all true Bulgarians, including those of the rural
districts, were fully aroused; and, reminded by their respective
chieftains, or heads of communities, of the importance of the pending
question, and the necessity of united action, they determined to fight
the battle with the patriarch and overcome the opposition they continued
to meet with from that quarter. Help of any description was desirable
for them, and even foreign agency was prudently courted. The Porte was
given to understand that it possessed no subjects more faithful and
devoted than the Bulgarians, and that the rights they demanded could be
only obtained from it, and if their Sultan decided in their favor he
would secure their eternal gratitude and devotion. Rome began to take an
interest in the matter, and the Government of Napoleon III., stimulated
by the Uniate Propaganda, headed by some Polish dignitaries established
in Paris, endeavored to secure a hold upon the people by means of the
priests and agents sent into Bulgaria, and people were made to believe
that the whole of Bulgaria was ready to adopt Roman Catholicism and place
itself under the protection of France. (See the next chapter.)
Russia, alarmed by these rumors, also began to show signs of active
interest in the matter, and by her promises of assistance, her efforts
to counteract the Uniate movement, and the pressure she finally began to
enforce upon the Porte in favor of the Bulgarian church movement, ended
in gaining to her side a small but influential body of Bulgarians in the
Danubian districts. There was a critical moment when the Bulgarians,
thinking all was lost for them, turned their hopes and even appealed to
England for help, promising that if this were granted they would become
Protestants. The missionaries of the Evangelical and other Protestant
societies were led to believe in the possibility of such a conversion,
and became doubly zealous in their efforts to enlighten the people. In
the midst of this conflicting state of affairs, when each party tried
to enforce its own views and derive the most profit, the church of
Constantinople remained inflexible, the Porte took to compromising, and
the Bulgarians, doggedly and steadily working on, by degrees became more
venturesome in their action, more pressing in their demands, and more
independent in their proceedings. Greek bishops were ejected from their
dioceses in Bulgaria and driven away by the people. In Nish and other
places monasteries were seized, and their incomes reappropriated by the
Bulgarian communities. Personal encounters and struggles of a strangely
unchristian nature were frequent between the contending parties,
sometimes taking place even within the precincts of the churches. The
struggle for independence continued, in spite of the anathemas hurled
against the Bulgarians by the Patriarchate, and was encouraged by the
desertion of two Bishops to their side. The exile of these by the Porte,
at the instigation of the Patriarch, and a variety of other incidents
ensued, until in 1868 Fouad and Ali Pashas took up the Bulgarian cause,
and the exiled Bishops were recalled (February 28th, 1870).
Through the instrumentality of the latter a Firman was issued
constituting a Bulgarian Exarch, and permission was given to the
Bulgarians to elect their spiritual chief, the election to be confirmed
by a Berat of the Sultan.
Ali Pasha’s death, however, in 1871, caused new difficulties, and the
enforcement of this measure was, under different pretexts, delayed
during the ministry of his successor, Mahmoud Pasha, and ultimately only
fulfilled in consequence of the proportions the question had assumed,
and the active interest taken in it by Russia as shown in the policy of
General Ignatieff. This policy was not approved of by the majority of
thinking Bulgarians, who, with good reason, dreaded the consequences of
Russian influence based on the solid assistance it had rendered to the
Bulgarian church. Russia from all times has made use of the churches and
monasteries in Bulgaria, largely endowing them with sacerdotal gifts, in
order to consolidate her influence and gain the faith and confidence of
the people.
All now is confusion, darkness, and uncertainty in Bulgaria. Their
churches, inaugurated with so much hope and confidence, have been
polluted with every crime and stained with the blood of innumerable
victims. Centuries must pass before the wrongs and misfortunes of late
years can be forgotten by this unhappy people.
There is yet another Christian Church in Turkey which must have a place
in this chapter. St. Gregory the Illuminator, the patron saint of
Armenia, is looked upon as the effective bearer of that heavenly light
that was to extinguish the beacons of the fire-worshippers and found the
Armenian Church. In the beginning of the fourth century of our era this
saint preached in court of Tiridates, who, evidently little disposed at
the time to accept the new faith, vented his ill-humor against it by
ordering the martyrdom of its preacher. The most agonizing tortures, say
the Armenian annals, inflicted upon St. Gregory failed in the desired
effect. Finally, after having been made to walk on pointed nails, and
having melted lead poured down his throat, he was cast into a cistern,
among snakes and scorpions, where he lived fourteen years, daily fed by
an angel, who brought him bread and water. At the end of this period
he was allowed to issue from his dismal abode, and was called upon
to baptize the penitent king and his nobles, converted through the
instrumentality of the king’s sister, to whom the Christian religion
was revealed in a vision. Such is the legendary origin of Christianity
in Armenia. The new faith enforced by royalty was soon spread through
the country. St. Gregory was appointed Patriarch of Armenia, and after
creating a number of churches, bishoprics, and convents, and regulating
the canons of each, he retired into the solitude of a hermitage, where
he was put to death by order of the king’s son. It was the beginning of
a long course of misfortunes. There is something grand in the sacrifice
that the ignorant and stout-hearted Asiatics made in the cause of
religion. Nowhere was persecution so long or so cruel, martyrdoms so
terrible, self-denial so complete as among the people of the land where
the human race is fabled to have had its origin.
St. Gregory was succeeded in the Patriarchal chair by his son Aristogus,
who, having taken part in the Council of Nice in 335 A.D., brought back
with him some of its decrees, and caused the first schism in the church.
The terrible religious dissensions that raged for so many centuries
made themselves as deeply felt in Armenia as elsewhere. Every dogma
of Christianity was in turn examined, adopted, or rejected, until the
Monophysitic views, gaining the majority of the people, caused the schism
that finally separated the Armenian from the primitive church.
The two parties, though differing but slightly from each other, cease
not, even to the present day, their antagonism. The schismatics affirm
the absorption of the human nature of Christ into the Divine—the
procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father alone—redemption from
original sin by the sacrifice of Christ, redemption from actual sin by
auricular confession and penance. They adhere to the seven sacraments,
perform baptism by trine immersion, believe in the mediation of saints,
the adoration of pictures, and transubstantiation, and administer the
sacrament in both kinds to laymen; they deny purgatorial penance and
yet invoke the prayers of the pious for the benefit of the souls of the
departed.
The Armenian Church differs from the Latin in seven points. Its doctrine
is contained in the following formula, which the candidates for priestly
office are obliged to profess before ordination: “We believe in Jesus
Christ, one person and a double nature, and in conformity with the Holy
Fathers we reject and detest the Council of Chalcedon, the letter of
St. Leon to Flavian; we say anathema to every sect that denies the two
natures.”
In Church polity, after long quarrels and bickerings between three
patriarchs, each following his own interest, rivalries, and rites, the
supremacy has at last been vested in one who is called Catholicos, chosen
from among the Armenian archbishops and appointed by the Emperor of
Russia. The seat of the Patriarchate is the famous convent of Echmiadzin
at Erivan, in Russian territory. This convent contains a magnificent
library, is extremely wealthy, and exercises supreme power over the
others in spiritual matters. It alone has the right to ordain archbishops
to the forty-two archbishoprics under its control, and to settle points
of dogma. Among the pretended relics it possesses are the dead hand of
St. Gregory, used for consecrating his successors in the Patriarchate,
and the lance with which Christ was pierced. This convent of Echmiadzin
is to the Armenians what Mount Athos has been to the Greeks. In both,
Russia has spared neither expense nor effort to establish her influence
and spread it by means of these channels all over the Christian
populations of the East. Her too stirring policy at Mount Athos, as shown
by the publication of “Les Responsabilités,” and her attempt to enforce
upon the Catholicos of Echmiadzin the decree for the suppression of
the Armenian language in the churches and schools, and replacing it by
Russian, had an equally unfortunate result.
The efforts of the Russian Government to improve the condition of this
country are said to have met with a certain amount of success; commerce
and industry, encouraged by the creation of roads and other facilities,
have been the principal temptations held out to emigrants from Turkish
territory. Of all the European powers Russia alone could help to civilize
and improve the degraded condition of the Christians of those distant
regions. Her influence would have been stronger and more beneficial to
them if her policy had been a more straightforward and liberal one,
and more in accordance with the national rights of the people whose
good-will and confidence she will fail to secure so long as she follows
the old system of trying to Russianize them by the suppression of their
privileges.
The Armenian churches are not unlike those of the Greeks; they are
similar in decoration—pictures of Christ, the Virgin, and the saints
being the principal ornaments of their altars. These pictures are
slightly superior to the expressionless ones used by the Greeks. The
pious often decorate parts of these with a silver or gold coating on the
hands, or as an aureole, and sometimes over the whole body. The Armenians
have faith in the efficacy of prayers addressed to these images, as
well as in the laying of hands on the sick or distressed, who are often
taken to the church and left through the night before the altar of some
special saint. The Armenian patriarchs and bishops enjoy the same rights
and privileges as the Greeks, and administer justice to their respective
communities on the same conditions.
Like the Greek, the Armenian clergy are of two orders, secular and
monastic; the former are allowed to marry, but never occupy a high
position in the church. They are usually very poor, even poorer and more
retired than the Greek parish priests, living like the lower orders of
the people, who look upon them as their friends. Although ignorant,
they are much respected for the morality of their lives, but knowing
nothing more than the routine of their office they are unable to give any
religious instruction to their parishioners beyond that contained in the
books of prayer used in the church; a passage from the lives or writings
of the saints is read in place of a sermon.
This drawback to the propagation of more practical religion is being
by degrees removed since the introduction of excellent religious books
published by the Mechitarist College at Venice, and by the American
Missionary societies. The latter especially have done much to stimulate
the dormant spirit of inquiry; the large circulation of Bibles, which
by their low price are brought within the reach of all, encourages the
propensity shown by the Armenians to admit Protestant ideas, which are
being daily more extensively spread among the community. “In Central
Turkey alone there are now no less than twenty-six organized churches,
with some 2500 members, and audiences amounting in the aggregate to 5000
or 6000 steady attendants.”