VITHE ARMENIAN CHURCH

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 theblood 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 ofSt.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 Armeniaby 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, ofSt.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 ofSt.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; theirrevenues 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 calledVartabeds, 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 ofVardabetsor doctors, this title being attached to their individual names. They are governed according to the rule ofSt.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 theinfluence 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 EphesusA.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 NiceA.D.325; at ConstantinopleA.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, inA.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, ofSt.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 contentionsamong 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 plunderedthe 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, shehas 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, ofSt.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,thedivine 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 thetrue Prophet,true Priest, andtrue 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 thefirst 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]

“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,thedivine 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 thetrue Prophet,true Priest, andtrue 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 thefirst 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 denouncetheir 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.)

FOOTNOTES:[53]Ubicini, “Letters on Turkey,” Vol. II, pp. 256-7.[54]Muradian, “The History of the Apostolic Church of Armenia,” p. 35. (This work is in the Armenian language.)[55]Ubicini, “Letter on Turkey,” Vol. II, pp. 285-6.[56]Lynch, “Armenia,” Vol. I, p. 275.[57]Moffat, “Church History in Brief,” p. 142.[58]Malon, “The Life and Times ofSt.Gregory,” p, 31. London.[59]Lynch, “Armenia,” Vol. I, p. 314.[60]Bryce, “Transcaucasia and Ararat,” pp. 341-2.[61]Muradian, “The History of the Apostolic Church of Armenia,” pp. 117-121, 127-128.

[53]Ubicini, “Letters on Turkey,” Vol. II, pp. 256-7.

[54]Muradian, “The History of the Apostolic Church of Armenia,” p. 35. (This work is in the Armenian language.)

[55]Ubicini, “Letter on Turkey,” Vol. II, pp. 285-6.

[56]Lynch, “Armenia,” Vol. I, p. 275.

[57]Moffat, “Church History in Brief,” p. 142.

[58]Malon, “The Life and Times ofSt.Gregory,” p, 31. London.

[59]Lynch, “Armenia,” Vol. I, p. 314.

[60]Bryce, “Transcaucasia and Ararat,” pp. 341-2.

[61]Muradian, “The History of the Apostolic Church of Armenia,” pp. 117-121, 127-128.

Back to Index Next