The first thing to remember about this is, that it is an independent
and separate body as much as the Greek or the Roman Catholic church,
and older than either of them. I often hear such expressions as "the
Armenian Catholic Church," and many people think it simply a "branch"
of the great Eastern or Greek Church. It would be just as sensible
to consider the Greek a branch of the Armenian Church. Each of them
represents a form of church organization and body of doctrine which
best satisfied the representatives of certain races or nations;
the advantage of the Greek was that that race--or at least its
speech and thought--happened to be dominant in the Roman Empire at
the time when Christianity won the battle, and so had the official
backing of the empire, and was able to outgrow and crush down the
others. It was not any truer, any more the real Church of Christ,
than the Syrian or African or Armenian; it was not the earliest,
for the very first Christian churches sprang from the Jews; it was
not even the earliest great national church body, for the Armenian
church has that distinction. It had the most soldiers back of it to put
down its opponents, that is all. I have already told the story of the
foundation of the Armenian church by St. Gregory and Tiridates. That
church has its own head--the Catholicos or Pontiff, who is no more a
subordinate of either the Pope or the Greek Patriarch than the Grand
Llama is, or Dr. Parkhurst--and its own self-subsistent being.
As to the differences between them, in the first place the Armenian
is a purely Trinitarian. There is no room for Unitarianism within
its lines. When Gregory the Illuminator was preaching his sermons
on the hills and plains of Armenia, he laid the foundation of the
national church in the Trinity. His first sermon was on the Trinity;
his last sermon was on the Trinity. In all his sermons he asserted
the Trinity,--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Jesus Christ
being a perfect Man and a perfect God; in his person we see God in man
and man in God; a perfect Emmanuel, God with us. We see in him that
man can be united with God. The only possible way of salvation is
through Jesus Christ. He is the Saviour of the world and none else,
and whosoever believeth in Him shall be saved. This is the belief
and the only belief of the Armenian Church. Its members repeat the
Apostolic Creed and the Lord's Prayer every day in their churches. I
say every day because Armenians go to church every day,--twice,
morning and evening, and three times on Sunday.
Secondly, the Armenian has never been a persecuting church, and
every other one of the great Christian churches has been. The Armenian
church, as befits the first and most Christ-like of all the bodies that
professed Christ before Luther's time, has always been the broadest,
the most inclusive, the most untechnical of churches. It fellowships
with all other churches. It demands only that men shall profess and
believe in Christ, and live Christian lives; not that one shall belong
to its own church body. Its canons are conversion and regeneration,
purity, holiness, being born again from the Holy Spirit and becoming
Christ-like. It holds that Christianity is brotherhood through Jesus
Christ, and gives no warrant for oppression or persecution, curses
or anathemas. I need hardly say that it is alone in this of the
older churches. The others hold that no one can be saved outside of
their own bodies; hence they fulminate anathemas against all others,
and have the anathemas read in their churches, and they persecute
others to compel them to join themselves, or rid the world of a
possible danger that their own members may be tolled outside. The
Greek Church, where it has full power, will not even allow people
of other creeds to come into its country; for example, in Croatia a
Protestant is not allowed to live there at all, and the people said
in the Hungarian Diet that "intolerance was the most precious of
their rights." The Russian Greek Church will not permit a Protestant
missionary in Russia. Where the Roman Catholic power is complete,
it is just as intolerant. The Armenian church has been repeatedly
persecuted by both, and has always protested against the principle
of it, as well as against the pretensions of the Popes to universal
sway. It is fairly entitled to be called the first Protestant Church.
That the Armenian contention is for freedom of will, freedom of
conscience, freedom of worship, and political freedom, is the cause
of their being hated both by the Mohammedans and by their so-called
Christian neighbors; but it ought to be also a reason why Americans,
who believe in these things themselves, should sympathize with us. If
the Armenians would accept Mohammedanism, would the Turks persecute
them? No. If they would accept Roman Catholicism would the Turks
persecute them? No, for the Catholic states would not permit it. If
they would accept the Greek Church, would the Turks persecute them? No,
for Russia would not permit it. But as they are an independent church
the others are interested in persecuting them, and nobody is interested
in defending them. If there is any help to come to them it will not
be from the old churches of Europe, but from Protestant Anglo-Saxons
helping their spiritual brethren, the Anglo-Saxons of the East; and
it will be found, when the great battle comes, that the Slavonic,
Greek, and Catholic churches will be on the side of the Mohammedans
against the Armenian Christians. But that battle will come, and the
victory will be on the side of freedom and righteousness.
As to theological questions, the Armenian Church fathers did not pay
much attention to them. Not because they were not able, but because
they were too able, and very far-sighted. They knew well that such
questions can never be solved, no matter how many centuries pass away,
no matter how great scholars the world produces; therefore they would
not enter into the debate. And so every Armenian scholar has his own
theology. I confess that the Armenian Church has not a theology, or an
especial official doctrine; and this is a very fortunate thing for the
Armenians. They care more for righteousness of life than for particular
beliefs about the way of getting it. When there was a great controversy
in the Council of Chalcedon, 451 A.D., about the nature of Christ,
Armenians did not care about it. Some of the great theologians said
Christ had two natures; some said he had only one nature; the Armenian
bishops would not give any opinion. They believe in Christ as their
Saviour, that is the essential thing; but whether He has two natures
or one nature is not essential. Then came the controversy about the
Holy Spirit. Whence does the Holy Spirit proceed? Some say from the
Father and the Son, some simply from the Father. When the question came
before the Armenian bishops they replied that they did not care whence
He proceeds. They know that they need the Holy Spirit for guidance
in spiritual life, for regeneration; they know that the Holy Spirit
is one of the persons in the Trinity; and that is enough for them.
Now I would ask, do the theologians of the nineteenth century agree on
such questions, or any other theological question? Are the theologians
of the coming centuries going to agree on them? I leave this to the
scholars of Europe and America. I simply state that I studied in three
different theological seminaries in America; first in Oberlin, in 1880;
second in Union Theological Seminary, New York, in 1881; and finally
I was graduated from the Chicago Theological Seminary. But I never saw
a theologian who could agree with any other, and have no hope ever to
see any such. President Fairchild of Oberlin differed from Professor
Shedd of New York, and Professor Boardman of Chicago did not agree
with either of them; and I never agreed with any of them, and as an
Armenian I have my own theology. So every reader of this book will see
that the Armenian scholars had the best judgment, far-sightedness,
and common sense of those in any or all the communions. Instead of
theological controversies, they preached the gospel and reached the
masses, for the Kingdom of Christ.