Armenia, a martyr nation: A historical sketch of the Armenian people from traditional times to the present tragic daysGabrielian, Mugurdich Chojhauji
History
Armenia, a martyr nation: A historical sketch of the Armenian people from traditional times to the present tragic days
Gabrielian, Mugurdich Chojhauji
Armenia; Armenian question
“Thus all who were suspected of Protestantism were asked to
acknowledge by affixing thereunto their signatures. Those who would
refuse to do so were to be anathematized and expelled from the Church.
As soon as Rev. Dwight and Dr. Goodell were informed of the Council’s
proceedings they advised the brethren not to separate themselves from
the Armenian communion, saying that, if they did so, the work would
not advance so rapidly.”[87]
In 1843 a young Armenian embraced Mohammedanism. But he became a prey
to the remorse of his conscience for his apostacy. He, therefore,
renounced Mohammedanism and reconfessed Christianity. He was seized
upon and beheaded in the streets of Constantinople by the Turkish
authorities, and his corpse was exposed to the public gaze for several
days, as an insult to Christianity. This event aroused the indignation
of the European ambassadors, who, through the English ambassador, Sir
Stratford Canning, demanded and extorted from the Sultan the following
written pledge: “The sublime Porte engages to take effectual measures
to prevent henceforward the execution and putting to death of the
Christian who is an apostate.”
The imprudent conduct of the patriarch, Bishop Matteos, by his
anathemas and excommunicating those who were favorably disposed, and
were endeavoring to reform the Church, exposed them to all manner of
maltreatment. They “were stoned in the streets, unjustly imprisoned,
ejected from their shops, invaded and plundered in their houses,
bastinadoed and abandoned by their friends.” These persecutions were
severe and extended into the provinces wherever there were those who
loved the cause of reformation. The unwise course pursued by the
patriarch to prevent separation by persecution indeed hastened the
division in the church. Vartabed M. Muradian’s statement in regard to
Bishop Matteos’ conduct is as follows:
“Patriarch Matteos had already begun religious controversies with the
Protestant missionaries, these same controversies were travails of a
new eruption. Those inclined to Protestantism were about to appear
and the anathematizing course taken by Matteos very materially aided
the purpose of the Protestant missionaries, because to persecute is
to spread. And, behold, thus on the one hand the inconsiderateness of
those inclined to Protestantism, and on the other hand the imprudent
conduct of Patriarch Matteos, caused a number of our people to depart
from the maternal bosom of the church and adhere to Protestantism,
which forms a distinct body, choosing for itself a separate civil
head.”[88]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account