Chapter XX: Camps of Refuge, 1915-17 332 (3)

The Saracenic policy was quite different from that of the Persians. The latter were not so intensely cruel, and were anxious to unify the two peoples by the enforcement of their religion upon the Armenians. But the Saracens were the very prototype of the Turks in cruelty and in oppression. They kept on their regular incursions and inroads into the country at short intervals, and spread death and destruction, and carried many away as captives or hostages; these captives and hostages were often forced to become Mohammedans, or they were massacred. A picture drawn by the wildest imagination will fall far below the suffering of the people and the atrocities of the followers of Mohammed. The Armenians were often willing to let everything else go if they were left with their preferred faith, the religion of Christ. Even then they were not left alone. They often, compelled to do so, took arms to defend their religion and rights and perished, sword in hand. Thus it was and is since the introduction of Christianity into Armenia: “The history of Armenia presents but a melancholy picture to the friend of humanity. Rapacious neighbors, the enemies of Christianity, found a theater for their unheard-of cruelties and oppressions in that beauteous land, the inhabitants of which were equally exposed to the outrages of Paganism and Islam.”

The condition of the provinces of Armenia governed by the Greeks was hardly better. The Saracens were pushing their way northward and westward. The Greeks were becoming unbearable on account of their prejudices and persecutions occasioned by such comparatively trifling differences from the Greek Church, in the rituals and ceremonies of the Armenian Church. The state of things, indeed, was in a most deplorable condition.

The Armenians were subdued and ruled over with a rod of iron, by the Saracens, but they were by no means completely conquered or crushed. The love for independence and self government was still rife in them. They made several attempts at different times to revolt. Their attempts failed and they paid dearly for them. But towards the middle of the ninth century the reign of the Caliphs of Bagdad was weakened by dissensions. A prince of the Pagradit family had proved himself very prudent as a governor of Armenia, so much so that he had received from the Caliph the title of “Prince of Princes,” in 859, and in 885 he was crowned as King of Armenia. Ashdod I the King of Armenia was the first of the Pagradit (Pagradeonian) dynasty.

The Pagradit family was old, influential and rich, according to our Herodotus, Moses of Khoren, King H’rache brought a small colony of the Hebrews from Judea when he returned with the armies of Nebuchadnezzar in B.C. 597,[48] and a prince by the name Shampat was the head of this Pagradit family. This dynasty lasted only from 885-1045, and had a stormy time, yet it shows what a grand and glorious period it must have been. Hundreds of churches in the city of Ani and its suburbs, magnificent castles, palaces, forts and numerous defenses of the city and throughout the country, though to-day in ruins, eloquently declare the glory of the Pagradit dynasty of Armenia in the middle ages.

There is something marvelous in the annals of the Armenian history. Though they are surrounded by hostile and uncivilized nations and with such internal and infernal dissensions and contentions, yet the spirit of bravery, courage and unconquerable love of liberty, as it were, sprang up from the very ashes and the dust of the burnt and ruined cities and towns; yea, even from the carcass-covered and blood-drenched soil of Armenia. Thus it was that during this dynasty a marvelous civilization flourished amid the savage and barbarous nations, and this dynasty would have maintained its independence to the present had the rulers found any sympathy or toleration in the western Christian nations.

It was in the period of this dynasty that the Mongolian Tatar tribes, who were scattered over the plains and table-lands of central and northern Asia, began to move westward in search of plunder and pasture-lands. These tribes had distinctive names in their own country, but after leaving that they began to be denominated by the names of their leaders, like Seljukians, after Seljuk; Othmanlis or Ostmanlis, after Othman or Osman. They were pastoral in their occupations; warlike in disposition; rapacious and predatory in their habits; nomadic in their mode of life, and surely pagans in practice of religion. They first settled in Persia, and there they came in contact with the religion of Mohammed. They accepted it and entered the Mohammedan army. They excelled the Arabs in enthusiasm, in intolerance, and cruelty, especially upon the Christians. Indeed, the entry of the Mongolian hordes, or the Turks into Western Asia was and still is the worst of all evils and the severest of all the calamities that ever was inflicted upon the Armenians or any other Christian nation in western Asia.

But the downfall of that dynasty which had maintained its existence over a century and a half was not brought about by the hands of the merciless Arabs, nor even by those of the barbarous Turks, though cruel and savage they were. In those days, they did not often do with treachery what they could not with bravery. Even the Turks were somewhat more honest than they are now.

Cakig,[49] the last king of this dynasty, had made himself both popular and beloved on account of his just and wise administration of the government. The Greek Emperor, Monamaches, demanded from Cakig for some pretense the surrender of the Capital Ani. Cakig’s reply to the Emperor was “I can never be prevailed upon quietly to relinquish my paternal inheritance to any individual.” Hereupon the emperor sent a large force against the king; however, the troops were defeated. He again tried by force to accomplish his object, but his attempt was unsuccessful; he then entered into an alliance with the Mohammedan governor of the districts bordering on the provinces of Cakig to ruin the latter; but this also proved to be a failure. Then the emperor pretended to be appeased and entered into friendship, inviting the king on a visit to Constantinople. Cakig doubted the apparent friendship and the sincerity of the emperor, but alas, some of his chiefs who had conspired against him and were sharers of the guilt of the emperor prevailed upon him. Confiding in the solemn assurances of the emperor, and in compliance with the requests of his chiefs, he went to Constantinople. First he was exiled by this perfidious emperor to an island, then to Asia Minor. This dethroned king, deprived of his rightful crown and scepter and paternal inheritance, after a period of thirty-five years of exile, was assassinated by the Greeks.

While King Cakig was an exile the Greeks took possession of the capital, the City of Ani, and a large territory. The Seljukian Turks, who had settled themselves in Persia, were increasing in number and in power, finding the country in a defenseless condition, invaded Armenia. At this first incursion they desolated twenty-four provinces; at their second attack ruined many cities and towns and carried an immense number of the inhabitants into captivity. In the third, they laid siege to the city of Arzu, where many had taken refuge, it being a walled city. The inhabitants made a desperate resistance, but the enemy was too strong, and the Armenians, too fatigued to fight any longer, surrendered. The Seljukian Turks, after having taken possession of the city, displayed a barbarism which was a true example and an equal to those of later cruelties of the Mongolian Tatars. Of the one hundred and fifty thousand inhabitants and those who had taken refuge in the city, some were butchered in cold blood, some were roasted to death, and the rest carried into captivity. This doleful calamity, one of many, took place in the year of our Lord, 1049.

Several times during every year, the Seljukian Turks and Tatars repeated their incursions, devastated and plundered the country, and indiscriminately massacred the people or enslaved them. Togrul Beg, for fourteen years, before he went to meet the Judge of Nations, tormented, tortured and butchered the Christian Armenians, and dyed the land of Ararat crimson with the blood of her inhabitants. These persecutions and massacres compelled the people to migrate into safer districts. Some of the Armenian princes who were assuming royal titles, instead of uniting their forces against a common enemy, fell prey to the foe, or exchanged their vast territories with the Greek emperor for other provinces. Thus King Sennacherib transferred his immense estates of Vaspuragian and took instead of them the city of Sebastea (now Sivas) and the country about it, extending to the banks of the Euphrates on the east.

The Armenians were rapidly increasing in the provinces of Cappadocia and Cilicia on account of the frequent invasions and incursions of the Seljukian Turks. Alp Arslan, the nephew of Togrul Beg, succeeded him 1063. In the following year, Arp Arslan (valiant lion) invaded Armenia, laid siege to the royal city of Ami, and took it. “It is impossible to describe the destruction and slaughter wrought by the hands of these barbarians, the blood of thousands and ten thousands dyed the waters of Aphour (the river that runs through the city), and the magnificent buildings were set on fire, and numerous bodies, the carcasses, were covered under the ashes and ruins.”[50] Arp Arslan invaded Armenia, again, in battle against the Greeks and captured emperor Romanus Diogenes (1071) and wrested the entire country from the Greeks. His fearful career came to an end by the dagger of a captive enemy in the following year in Turkestan. His son, Malick Shah, succeeded him, and extended the empire from the shores of the Mediterranean on the west to the borders of China on the east. “In religion Seljukian sovereigns surpassed the other moslems of their age in fierce intolerance, and thereby inadvertently provoked the famous Crusades of the western nations. Upon wresting Jerusalem for a time from the dominion of the Egyptian Caliphs, they visited with such hardships the resident and pilgrim Christians, that Europe armed for their deliverance from oppression.”[51]

Many of the Armenians, driven by these powerful invaders and oppressors, had made their way into Cappadocia and Cilicia, and both in the plains and also in the Tauros Mountain districts they formed a strong colony. A young man, who was a relative and a companion with two others, of the unfortunate King Cakig, had made his escape from the plans of the assassins who intended to kill these also after they had done away with the king, found refuge in the mountains. This man, whose name was Reuben, was a center of attraction among the Armenians, a man of warlike disposition and personal prowess, and bent on vengeance. He resided with his son Constantine in Cilicia; his condition must have been very much like that of David when he was a fugitive from the face of Saul. Reuben cautiously avoided conflicts with the Greeks when he was not sure of success, but such contests that he had with them he was invariably victorious. He attacked and wrested the fortress of Parzherpert (lofty fort), and from this time (A.D. 1080) he styled himself Reuben the First, assuming independent reign over the Armenians, who were increasing year by year. Thus began the Reubenian dynasty of the Armenians in Cilicia.

It was during the reign of Constantine, the son and successor of Reuben I, that the immense army of the Crusaders for the first time marched into Western Asia, took the city of Nice and various other places, and laid siege to Antioch. But a terrible famine broke out in their camp. When Constantine and his chiefs were informed of the condition of the Crusaders, he sent an abundance of provisions to the army of the defenders of the Cross. This last dynasty of the Armenians in Cilicia covers a period of almost three centuries. It was by no means in a favorable condition, while Western Asia was in a fearful turmoil and agitation, the conflicting forces by no means disappearing.

The Seljukian Turks, after losing their capital, Nice, made Iconium (which over ten centuries before had listened to the famous missionaries, Paul and Barnabas, tell the story of the Cross) their capital, and made it resound with the “ezzen” of the “Muezzin” from the numerous minarets. It became a source of great trouble to the Armenians. The Greeks, inflamed with like hatred and malice as before, were more or less in constant conflict with them. The Armenians, over-exultant on account of the presence of the Christian forces of the Western nations in the East, were willing to enlist in aid of their cause by entering into an alliance with them, but by doing so they intensified the jealousy and hatred of the Greeks and the wrathful cruelty of the Turks. Moreover, the suspicions of some that these foreigners were anxious to bring the Armenian church under the control of the Pope of Rome were sustained by the facts revealed in due time.

It may be interesting to give a sample of the zeal of the Armenians in their effort to assist the Crusaders and the consequences: King Leo I of Cilicia was in an alliance with the Latin princes of Antioch. The emperor of Constantinople was bent on recovering that famous city from the Crusaders. Consequently to accomplish his purpose he marched on to Cilicia with a large army. The emperor and his generals seem to have been strategists and good warriors. They wrested the city of Antioch and reduced many Cilician provinces and took Leo and his two sons, Reuben and Toros, captives and carried them to Constantinople (1136). The cruel Greeks, after tormenting and torturing their captives, deprived the crown-prince, Reuben, of his eye-sight, then, still not satisfied, they put him to death in the presence of his father, the king. This barbarity so affected him that he died heart-broken in his dungeon (1141). The history of Armenia presents a melancholy picture to the friend of humanity and Christianity; especially when you find some so-called Christians worse than pagans, you still feel thankful that they are at least nominally Christians; what would have happened if they were heathen? Arp Arslan did not treat Emperor Romanus in that manner, because he was not a Greek Christian.

A new tremendous army of the Mongolians, under the command of Genghis Khan, made its appearance in Western Asia; and spread all over Persia, Armenia, Caucasus, Russia, and part of Asia Minor destruction, devastation, and death; committing wholesale massacres, consuming the cities and towns by fire, and carrying away hundreds and thousands into captivity. “Seven years in succession was the conqueror (Genghis Khan) busy in the work of destruction, pillage, and subjugation, and extended his ravages to the banks of the Dnieper.” Armenia has been, over and over, inundated with the blood of her inhabitants, enriched with the carcasses of her people upon her face; her beautiful and bright sky was often rendered dark by the smoke of the conflagrations of her immense cities and numerous towns, kindled by her enemies; her fair sons and graceful daughters were torn away from her maternal bosom, carried into captivity and sold for slaves; her magnificent churches and monasteries were converted into mosques and “tekes.” Yet the “The House of Togarmah” marches on through these tremendous seas of injustice, oppression, persecution, cruelty, and bloodshed, from a remote antiquity to the end of the fourteenth century of our era, lifting up the old, centuries-old flag of liberty, torn to pieces and ready to fall into an irreparable dissolution.

Toros, the son of the unfortunate King Leo I, effected his escape from the Greek army and returned to Cilicia (1145). He gathered about him a nucleus and gradually recovered Cilicia from the Greeks and after a reign of twenty-three years, he died in peace (1168). Reuben II succeeded his uncle, Mileh, and reigned until his retirement in 1185, and his brother Leo II followed him. It was during the reign of Leo II that Saladin, the sultan of Egypt, captured Jerusalem from the Crusaders (1187), a terrible slaughter of the Christians had been committed by the defender of the Mohammedan faith, which caused the western nations to call for the third crusade, headed by Frederick I, surnamed Barbarossa, a German emperor of Rome. He marched with his army opposed by the Greek emperor and the sultan of Iconium. From the latter place he sent a letter to Leo II, asking his assistance and telling of his need of supplies. Leo, Catholicos and Bishop Nerses, with abundant provisions, set out to meet him. But they did not have the pleasure of seeing him; for he was drowned while crossing a stream. What a pity! He was going to fight in defense of the Oriental Christians, not to put a crown on Saladin’s head, nor a wreath on his tomb; he was not going to offer his unsought-for friendship to the bloodthirsty followers of Mohammed, neither was he going to encourage them to massacre the lowly followers of the lowly Nazarene. Yet he was drowned. Surely “God moves in a mysterious way His wonders to perform.” We do not question His wisdom nor His goodness.

No doubt the object of the popes, who urged the Western sovereigns to raise crusades against the Mohammedans, and kept them engaged in this unsuccessful enterprise for a long time at the expense of immense wealth and the sacrifice of millions of human lives, was two-fold; to exercise their sublunary power over these potentates, and to further their influence over other Christian nations in the East. But they failed in both of these purposes. There came a time when the popes had no influence over the kings of Europe. And the Crusaders in the East rendered their names detestable forever, both to Christians and to non-Christians.

“In 1204 A.D., the Capital (Constantinople) was captured by the Crusaders, whose conduct fixed an indelible stain upon the name of the Franks throughout the East, especially as it is contrasted with that of the Mohammedans, who, a few years before, had conquered Jerusalem. When Saladin entered the latter city the church of the Holy Sepulchre was respected, and the conquered Christians remained in possession of their property; no confiscations were made of the wealth of the non-combatants. But the vaunted chivalry of the Papal church plundered a Christian city without remorse, desecrated its shrines, and maltreated its inhabitants, while the profane cry of ‘God Wills It,’ was raised to excite each other to act the part of brigands and debauchees. Sacred plate, golden images of saints, and silver candelabra from the altars; bronze statues of heathen idols and heroes, precious works of Hellenic art; crowns, coronets, thrones, vessels of gold and silver; ornaments of diamonds, pearls, and precious stones from the imperial treasury and the palaces of the nobles; jewelry and precious metals from the shops of the goldsmiths; silks, velvets and brocaded tissues from the warehouses of the merchants, together with coined money, were accumulated in vast heaps as spoils to be divided by the victors. A few of the crusading clergy endeavored to moderate the fury which the bigoted prejudices of the Latin Church had instilled into the minds of the soldiery against the Greeks, but many priests were as forward as the most abandoned of the troops in robbing the temples of a kindred faith.”[52]

Our Saviour’s words were literally fulfilled; with what measure the Greeks so often had measured and dealt with the Armenian, it was meted to them by the hands of the Crusaders; yet such a conduct of the Crusaders with the Christian, and undoubtedly a conduct a good deal worse than this towards Mohammedans, accounts for the determination and fury of the latter against the Christians. The reply of Meleck Nasr Mohmud, the Egyptian Sultan, to an application of the Armenian king Leo V, for a treaty of peace was the following: “I will never make peace with you until you promise on oath not to hold any correspondence or communication with Western nations.” Often did the Mohammedan powers imagine that the Armenians had again stirred up the Western nations, that they were marching against them in greater forces than ever before, and then they would attack the cities and towns of the Armenians and commit all manner of atrocities, thinking that that might be their last opportunity.

After the withdrawal of the Western nations--or rather their being driven out from the East--in full satisfaction of their complete failure, either to maintain their position or ameliorate the oppressed condition of the Oriental Christians under the Mohammedans, the latter had first little difficulty in destroying the independence of the Armenians in Cilicia. By various incursions of the Mohammedans of Egypt into Cilicia, the Armenians were reduced in strength and in numbers; finally a vast army of the enemy marched against them. Those missionary soldiers of Mohammed, indeed brutes in character and nature, though clad in clayey garments of human forms, spread themselves all over the country. No city, town, or village, or building of any value, whether church, monastery or dwelling, and no human being of any age or either sex that fell into their hands, was spared; they slaughtered every human being and burnt to ashes every building or razed it to the ground. In the execution of their unfortunate victims they did not leave any mode of torture untried. “The deceitful above all things and desperately wicked heart” of a depraved human creature could not have suggested any other method of torment and torture that these Mohammedans did not devise and experiment upon their captives. The Turks of to-day must have been studying their predecessors in faith and practice. King Leo VI and the garrison surrendered on condition that their lives would be spared; the Egyptian general promised this on oath; Leo was fettered, and with his family carried to Cairo in the eleventh year of his reign (A.D. 1375).

The king and family, after serving a period of imprisonment at Cairo, were freed by the mediation and valuable presents of the King of Spain. Leo with his queen and daughter, went to Jerusalem; there he left them at their own request, then visited the European countries. On the 19th of November, A.D. 1393, he ended his mortal career in Paris. “Leo King of Armenia, was of a small stature, but of intelligent expression and well-formed features. His body was carried to the tomb clothed in royal robes of white, according to the custom of Armenia, with an open crown upon his head and a golden scepter in his hand. He lay in state upon an open bier hung with white and surrounded by the officers of his household, clothed, all of them, in white robes. He was buried by the high altar of the Church of the Celestine.”

FOOTNOTES:

[44] According to ancient authorities, Byzantium was built by a Grecian colony about 658 B.C.

[45] An Armenian historian says, Tigranes translated thirty thousand inhabitants of Cappadocia, the Greek historian three hundred thousand.

[46] Rawlinson, “The Seventh Oriental Monarchy,” p. 546.

[47] Mohammed was born in Mecca 570, he fled to Medina 622. “Hegira” (the flight), and he died in the latter city A.D. 632, after two weeks of intense suffering which began before his death. See Chap XII, p. 204.

[48] See p. 52.

[49] The Kings of this dynasty: Ashod I, Sumpat I, Ashod II, Abas, Ashod III, Sumpat II, Cakig I, John Sumpat, Cakig II.

[50] Balasanian, “History of Armenia,” p. 285. (This work is written in Armenian language.)

[51] Milner, “The Turkish Empire,” p. 5.

[52] Milner, “The Turkish Empire,” London, pages 238-9.

VI

THE 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 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.)

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 of St. 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.

VII

THE PERIOD OF SUBJECTION

The Mameluke Sultans of Egypt were the unhappy instruments of harassing and finally overthrowing the Armenian independence in Cilicia, but they did not enjoy the pleasure of ruling over Armenia, nor Cilicia and the Armenians. The course of events was taking a different shape in Western Asia.

By a succession of influxes of the Mongolian hordes into the country, during the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries, the power of the Caliphs of Bagdad was broken into pieces and a vast empire was formed by the Seljukian Turks. After the death of the third sovereign, Malek Shah, the empire was divided into various principalities. One of these became a kingdom of considerable importance, lying on the frontier of the Greek empire, having Nice, afterwards Iconium (now Koniah), its capital. The same influx of the Mongolian invaders had not yet stopped on the one hand; on the other hand the Western Crusaders did render some service in annoying this kingdom, while the Mameluke Sultans by no means were at peace with the Seljukian Turks.

The turbulent condition of Western Asia at this period (13th century) could well afford the growth of a new power, or dynasty, provided this power was in sympathy with the prevalent religion, Mohammedanism, and congenial with the invading hordes. Unfortunately for the Christians, both in Western Asia, and later in Eastern Europe, we find a power, growing out of a nomadic tribe into a formidable empire, which held the Christian world in terror for several centuries. The following is the origin of this empire:

“About the middle of the thirteenth century a tribe of Turks, not of the stock of Seljuk, driven forward by the Mongol invaders, left their camping grounds in Khorasan and wandered into Armenia in search of undisturbed pasturage. After seven years of exile, deeming the opportunity favorable to return, they set out to their ancient possessions. But while fording the Euphrates, the horse of their leader fell with him and he perished in the river. A spot upon its banks now bears the name of the tomb of the Turk. Upon this accident occurring the tribe was divided by his sons into four companies and Ertogrul, the warlike head of one division, resolved to return to the westward and seek a settlement in Asia Minor. While pursuing his course he spied two armies in hostile array. Not willing to be a neutral spectator of the battle he joined himself to the apparently weaker party and his timely aid decided the victory. The conquered were an invading horde of Mongols, the conqueror was Aladdin, the Seljukian Sultan of Iconium, and Ertogrul received from the grateful victor an assignment of territory in his dominions for himself and his people. It consisted of the rich plains around Shughut, in the valley of the Sangarins (called the “country of pasture”), and of the Black Mountains on the borders of Phrygia and Bithynia. The former district was for his winter abode; the latter for his summer encampment. In this domain was nurtured his son Othman, or Osman, who became the founder of a dynasty and an empire. From him the Turks of the present day have the name of Ottoman, or Osmanli, which they universally adopt, rejecting that of Turk with disdain as synonymous with barbarian.”[62]

Othman began to reign about A.D. 1289. The shepherd, warrior, and freebooter were united in his character. He was dependent on the Sultan of Iconium during the life of the latter, but otherwise he was free to prey upon his neighbors and govern his people. After the death of the sultan, who had no sons to succeed him, his kingdom was divided, and Othman became, practically, an independent ruler. He increased and extended his power and territories by gradual encroachments upon the Grecian dominions, and by repeated inroads year after year. He captured Brousa and made it the capital of his government. His son and successor, Orchan, extended the bounds of Othman’s territories with astonishing rapidity. He crossed the Straits of Hellespont and Bosphorus. He appointed his brother, Aladdin, vizier. Aladdin created the system of the standing army in the year 1330.

“But the soldiers (taken from the Turks) proved intractable and could not be brought to submit to the strict discipline involved in military organizations. To obviate this difficulty the expedient was resorted to of rearing up in the doctrine of Islam the children of the conquered Christians inuring them from youth to the profession of arms and forming them into a separate corps. This black invention, as Von Hammer truly characterizes it, was adopted by Aladdin at the instance of Kara (black) Chalil Chenderli, the judge of the Army, and he adds, has ‘a diabolical complexion, much blacker than the gunpowder almost contemporaneously discovered by Schwartz (black) in Europe.’ Hence arose the Janissaries, a name which the westerns have corrupted from the Turkish Jenicheri, signifying the ‘new troops.’ The Corps continued to be recruited from the children of the captives taken in war, or from those Christian subjects, an inhuman tax of every fifth child or one child every fifth year, being rigorously levied upon the families. The number of the Janissaries, originally one thousand, was successively raised to twelve, to twenty, and to forty thousand, immediately connected with the Court, besides a much larger number scattered through the provinces. Hence it has been estimated that not less than half a million Christian children were cruelly torn from their parents, compelled to embrace Islamism, and trained to maintain it with the sword. At length, in the reign of Mohammed IV (A.D. 1648-1687) began the custom of admitting into the regiment the children of the soldiers themselves; and after this innovation, the Janissaries became a kind of military caste, transmitting from father to son the profession of arms.

“In the days of their pristine vigor, the new troops were distinguished by their fanaticism and valor. Through upwards of three centuries, marked by a long series of great battles, they sustained only four single reverses, chiefly from Tamerlane in 1402, and John Humades, the Hungarian general, in 1442. During that period they extended the petty kingdom of Brousa over the vast dominions of Constantine the Great, and made known their prowess from the walls of Bagdad to the gate of Vienna, and from the Caspian Sea to the Nile, while their name was the common terror of Christendom.”[63]