Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York City · June 11, 1896
RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION IN ARMENIA.
Origin and Religion of the People.
The present disturbed state of Armenia, which has been attended with so much bloodshed, and characterized by atrocities worthy of the Dark Ages, lends a peculiar interest to the history of that unhappy country.
The origin of the Armenians is lost in the mists of antiquity. According to tradition they are descended from Togarmah, a grandson of Japheth, one of the three sons of Noah, who settled in Armenia, after the ark rested upon Mount Ararat.
Tradition also relates that the gospel was preached in Armenia early in the first century by the apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew; and certain it is that in A. D. 276, both the king and the great mass of his people became at least nominally Christian.
“As a Christian nation whose lot has been cast beyond the frontiers of Christendom,” says Alice Stone Blackwell, “the Armenians have had to suffer constant persecution,—in early times from the Persian fire worshipers, in later centuries from the Mohammedans.”
The Armenians received aid and sympathy from the Crusaders, and in return gave them active support. This is doubtless one reason for the hatred with which they are regarded by the Mohammedans everywhere. After the failure of the Crusades they were subjected to fierce persecutions and great barbarities at the hands of Tartars, Persians and Ottoman Turks. But through it all the Armenians have held tenaciously to their faith.
Demand of the Persian King.
It was about the middle of the 5th century that the Armenians first lost their independ- ence. They remained a nation, however, until in 1604, Shah Abbas laid the whole country waste, and forcibly transplanted about 40,000 of the inhabitants into Persia. “Since then,” says the “Encyclopædia Britannica,” “the Armenians have had no political position as a nation, though they continue to form an important and valuable portion of the population in Russia, Turkey, and Persia.”
In A. D. 450, the Persian king sent a letter to the Armenian princes in which he highly extolled fire worship, contrasting it with Christianity, much to the disadvantage of the latter, as he painted it, and demanding that the Armenians should embrace the religion of Persia.
Upon receipt of the king’s letter a council was called, and after due deliberation, an answer was returned to the imperious letter of the Persian monarch.
From the Missionary Herald. AFION KARAJ HISSAR, TURKEY. By permission.
The Reply of the Armenians.
After replying at considerable length to the argument of the king against the Christian faith186the Armenian princes and bishops concluded:—
“From this faith no one can move us,—neither angels nor men; neither sword, nor fire, nor water, nor any deadly punishment. If you leave us our faith, we will accept no other lord in place of you; but we will accept no god in place of Jesus Christ; there is no other god beside him. If, after this great confession, you ask anything more of us, lo, we are before you, and our lives are in your power. From you, tormenter, from us, submission; your sword, our necks. We are not better than those who have gone before us, who gave up their goods and their lives for this testimony.”
This noble reply filled the Persian king with rage. His rejoinder was an army of 200,000 men, which invaded Armenia, carrying death and destruction everywhere. A battle was fought at the foot of Mount Ararat, in which the Armenians were defeated; but the obstinate resistance to his will offered by rich and poor, men, women and children, soon convinced the king that he could never make fire worshipers of the descendants of Togarmah. An old historian thus quaintly expresses it: “The swords of the slayers grew dull, but the necks of the Armenians were not weary.”
The Armenians’ Love of Country.
After ages of injustice and oppression the spirit of the Armenians is unbroken and their love of liberty is perhaps unsurpassed by any people; while their affection for their country is something touching. One of their poets has thus expressed this latter sentiment:—
Had a lifetime of ages been granted to me
I had given it gladly and freely to thee,
O my life, my Armenia!
Were I offered the love of a maid lily-fair,
I would choose thee alone for my joy and my care,
My one love, my Armenia!
Were I given a crown of rich pearls, I should prize,
Far more than their beauty, one tear from thine eyes,
O my weeping Armenia!
If freedom unbounded were proffered to me,
I would choose still to share thy sublime slavery,
O my mother, Armenia!
The Armenians’ Love of Liberty.
As is to be inferred from the last stanza of the foregoing quotation, the Armenians’ love of freedom is only second to their love of country, and it may well be doubted if it is not equal to it. Centuries of wrong and oppression seem only to have intensified in the Armenian bosom the God-given passion for liberty, as is witnessed by the following from another of the poets of that oppressed land:—
When first my faltering tongue was freed,
And when my parents’ hearts were stirred
With thrilling joy, to hear their son
Pronounce his first clear-spoken word,
“Papa, Mamma,” as children use,
Were not the names first said by me;
The first word on my childish lips
Was thy great name, O Liberty!
“Liberty!” answered from on high
The sovereign voice of Destiny:
“Wilt thou enroll thyself henceforth
A soldier true of Liberty?
The path is thorny all the way,
And many trials wait for thee;
Too strait and narrow is this world
For him who loveth Liberty.”
“Freedom!” I answered, “on my head
Let fire descend and thunder burst;
Let foes against my life conspire,
Let all who hate thee do their worst:
I will be true to thee till death;
Yea, even upon the gallows tree
The last breath of a death of shame
Shall shout thy name, O Liberty!”
Political Insurrection and Religious Hate.
This intestine strife in Armenia in which 50,000 men, women and children lost their lives, was not primarily religious but political. Political insurrection gave opportunity, however, for religious hate to manifest itself, and thousands of non-combatants fell victims to the fanatical hate of Moslem soldiers. The Independent, of March 19, published a list of twenty-one preachers and pastors who laid down their lives directly for their faith, during November and December, 1895. “Each one of them,” says the Independent, “was offered his life if he would renounce Christ and accept Islam; but they counted not their lives dear unto them.”
Of these twenty-one martyrs, the Independent says: “They were the best men, the most highly educated men among their people, their natural leaders. Every one was put to death for refusing to become a Mohammedan. In every case the offer of life on these terms was made; in several cases time was allowed for consideration of the proposal; and in each case faith in Jesus Christ was the sole crime charged against the victim.”
Not only are the names of these men given, but the names of the places where they suffered death and the dates are also given.
“Christians” Persecuting Christians.
But the saddest feature of religious persecution in Armenia and among Armenians in other parts of Turkey, is that “Christians” have in many instances persecuted Christians. The bulk of the Armenian people belong to the Armenian Church, which is almost identical in faith with the Greek or Russian Church. The head of the church is called “Patriarch” or “Catholicos,” and the Armenian Church never accepted the decision of the Council of Chalcedon.
Of course the breach between the Armenian Church and the Roman Church is much wider than between the Greek and the Armenian Churches, and much of the persecution of the Armenians has been at the instigation of Roman Catholics. Our illustration, which we are permitted to use by the courtesy of the Missionary Herald, shows the scene of the severe persecution of this character which took place in 1892. Rev. Lyman Bartlett, of Smyrna, in an article in the Missionary Herald, for May, says of Afton Kara Hissar:—
During the summer of 1892 I visited this place with my daughter at a time when the persecution was at its height, and during our stay of three weeks the house we occupied, which was the home of the preacher, was stoned every night but one. The front windows, being protected by wire netting, were uninjured; but the back rooms, whose windows were exposed, could not be used for a time, and the windows were taken out to save them from destruction. The brethren were almost daily stoned by the boys in the streets, and one Sunday during our stay a crowd gathered about the door, railing at those who dared to enter, and stoning the door after we had assembled for worship, till finally we were obliged to call on the Turkish police to protect us from the violence of the mob. For a long time most active measures were employed to prevent people coming to the worship, both slander and threats being freely used, and the preacher was most shamefully maligned.
At one time a document was presented to the governor accusing him of having, in a public place, shamefully slandered the Virgin Mary, and this document was emphasized by 200 signatures, mostly Armenians. The governor informed me of this foul accusation, but declared that he should not submit it to the court, as it could be nothing but slander. Yet, after we had gone, it was served in due form, and the good man was summoned before the Turkish court for trial. He had no one to plead his cause, and his accusers were many, but being allowed to speak in his own defense, he easily convinced the court and all who heard him, of his entire innocence and of the perfidy of his accusers. The case was dropped without further trial. In this affair he rejoiced in the fulfillment of our Lord’s promise: “It shall be given you in that hour, what ye ought to speak.”
Persecution by Mohammedans.
The Missionary Herald, for June, has also the following paragraph, which is of interest in this connection:—
In the town of Severek, in Central Turkey, there were recently three of the original members of the Protestant community formed forty years ago. Two of these became martyrs, one while praying on his housetop. The third denied his faith in order to save his life. It is said that every minister and priest in the place sealed his faith with his blood, excepting one Catholic priest, who saved his life by flight.
Miss Grace E. Kimball, M. D., writing to the Missionary Herald, under date of March 1, says:—
The villagers from the districts of Khizan, Norduz, and Moks show the most distress. In Khizan, a district partly in the Bitlis, partly in the Van vilayet, there is a large Koordish population—fanatical Moslems, headed by a sheikh, the son of the famous Sheikh Jeladin. Last fall the sheikh instituted a regular campaign against the Christian population, with a view to rooting out that religion from his borders. This outburst of fanaticism was avowedly brought to a climax by the visit of a British vice-consul to the region. All the Armenians who entertained him, or in any way had to do with him, were either killed or barely escaped by flight and hiding. As a result of this crusade of last fall, practically the whole Christian population has nominally accepted Islam, the churches are turned into mosques, and even the gravestones, bearing the sign of the cross, have been pulled down and defiled by serving as lavatories for the Koords. Very many—it is impossible to know how many—were killed out of special spite, and as an argument to facilitate the “conversion” of the rest. The priests in particular were victims either of slaughter or of forcible conversion.
Many other details might be given, but enough has been said. The fact is established that to the horrors of war have been added in the last decade of the nineteenth century the additional horrors of religious persecution; and that thousands have been slaughtered, not alone because they were “rebels,” but because they bore the hated name of “Christian.” How many of them were such indeed, only the Judge of all the earth knows, and he alone will make it manifest in his own good time.
METHODISTS AND THE “CHRISTIAN AMENDMENT.”
By S.
A COMMITTEE of the Methodist Episcopal General Conference have been wrestling with the question of giving the indorsement of the M. E. Church to the proposed “Christian amendment” to the National Constitution; but, according to the Christian Statesman, of May 23, the latest news from the conference regarding the matter was “a good deal of a disappointment.” It seems that the cause of the amendment has not had very smooth sailing within the sphere of action of this highest of Methodist representative bodies, but its friends console themselves—not without reason, we fear—with the hope of better success at an early day.
The Statesman records that when the matter of indorsing the amendment came up for consideration, one “member of the conference attributed the origin and pushing of the amendment to the Christian Endeavor societies as one of their ‘idiotic movements.’ A delegate from the Wilmington, Del., Conference, proposed as a substitute, an amendment containing simply an acknowledgment of God, declaring that the Christian amendment would establish a theocracy in America and unite Church and State. The entire matter187was referred to the committee on the state of the Church. This committee laid the matter on the table. But on the earnest presentation of the cause by Mr. R. M. Downie, of Beaver Falls, Pa., it was taken up again and discussed at considerable length. Once more it was proposed to substitute the acknowledgment of Almighty God without any reference to Christ. But many of the committee insisted that the amendment should be Christian in its character. And as there was such determined opposition in the committee to the acknowledgment of Christ, the whole matter was laid on the table.”
Strongly attached as the Methodists are to Sunday observance, and to the doctrine that Sunday is the Lord’s day, it is yet evident that a large element in the denomination recoil from such a step in the process of securing Sunday enforcement as the proposed amendment embodies. It is evident that many are not yet blind to the fact that its success would mean a union of Church and State.
The Statesman takes this action as representing an attitude of indifference, if not of hostility, to the “reform” scheme on the part of the entire Methodist body, and says: “It is a deep grief to multitudes of the most patriotic members of this great church, in which the spirit of Christian reform is strong, that this committee has, by its official action, put itself and the General Conference which it represents and thus the entire church as a unit, on record against the nation’s acknowledgment in its fundamental law and in its most public confession of national character before the world, of the kingly character and claims of our Lord Jesus Christ. But,” the Statesman adds, “this record will not stand.”
We fear it will not. Already the Prohibition Party in Iowa and Pennsylvania have signified allegiance to the cause, and it is not to be expected that the churches will fall behind political bodies in giving the amendment support. We are persuaded, however, that large numbers in all the leading churches will refuse to sanction a scheme so contrary to the spirit of Christianity and the demands of justice, whether sanctioned by the representative church bodies or not.
S.
NO COMPROMISE WITH THE SALOON.
At a convention of the Seventh-day Baptist churches of West Virginia, held May 20–24, at Greenbriar, that State, the following resolutions relating to Sunday laws were passed, together with others condemning the rum traffic and advocating prohibition:—
Resolved, That we believe that the Sabbath is a divine institution, the appointment of the seventh day of the week to be kept holy unto the Lord; and that it is not the province of the civil law to determine or enforce its observance.
Resolved, That we ask the Legislatures of States to repeal existing Sunday laws, because of the encroachment thereby of the State upon matters which men owe alone to God; and because the simulation of the Sabbath imposes a hindrance to the discernment and observance of the day we are commanded of God to keep holy.
Resolved, That we esteem the blessings of the Sabbath to be a great good, but that the compulsory idleness which the attempted supervision of civil law presumes to interpose is subversive of that good; that it gives, and only can give, a holiday instead of a holy day; and that the enforced idleness intended for aid of the church is, instead of that, a corralling of the world in the interests of the saloons.
Resolved, That we will have nothing to do with laws for prohibition of the liquor traffic one day in seven, because it is such a compromise as implies a tacit admission for it to continue the other six days; because it diverts from efforts for entire prohibition, and that it absorbs largely the efforts in behalf of prohibition, engaging its friends in a very much harder task than it would be to maintain entire prohibition.
These resolutions were printed in the Pittsburg Press, of May 27, which added the pertinent comment that “if a compulsory holiday operates in favor of the saloon, rather than against it, it behooves Prohibitionists to modify their action respecting the Sunday laws.”
THE CALIFORNIA SUNDAY LAW.
The following is a letter from the clerk of one of the standing committees of the 31st Session of the California Legislature:—
St. Helena, Cal., May 22, 1896.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE AMERICAN SENTINEL,
New York City, N. Y.
Dear Sir: In your issue of May 14, page 156, speaking of the decision of the California Supreme Court declaring the “Barbers' Law” unconstitutional, you say:—
“The real protection aimed at was protection for a religious institution.”
Whatever may have been the result, allow me to say that this conclusion of a fact is erroneous. The “Barbers' Law” was devised and advocated by the Barbers' Union, and its expressed intention, or rather, the expressed intention of its advocates and sponsors, was to “protect” the business of barbers who desired to close up their shops one day in the week and not lose the trade that would thereby go to the shops of men who did not close up.
From actual contact with the proponents of the “Barbers' Law,” I can say that there was no thought of religion in their scheme, although they did use the religious argument where they thought it would be of service.
There was a general belief at the time the law was passed that the governor only signed it for the political favor of the Barbers' Union, knowing it was unconstitutional.
California is not irreligious, but there is no State in the Union where religious laws are looked upon with less favor.
Very respectfully,
FRANK H. OWEN.
We are glad that Mr. Owen has written so fully and freely. Doubtless the object that the barbers had in view when they asked for the passage of the act in question, was just what he says it was. Being right on the ground he certainly had a better opportunity to know the facts than we would have at this distance.
Nevertheless the motive of the barbers does not greatly alter the case. The fact is that Sunday laws, whatever may be the motive back of them, tend to the exaltation of Sunday as a religious institution; and were it not for the fact that Sunday is a religious institution, and is so regarded by a very large number of people, such legislation would not be sought; and if it were sought, could not be secured.
We find no laws forbidding labor upon our national or State holidays. All legislation on that subject seeks to make it possible for as many as desire a holiday to have it; but nobody is compelled to observe a holiday except as the circumstances may be such as to render it out of the question for them to do business because others are not doing business. But no penalty is provided for a man who works on New Year's Day, Washington's Birthday, Decoration Day, Fourth of July, or Christmas. It is true that in some countries abstinence from labor is made compulsory on other days than Sunday, but it is always because of the religious character of such days. Such laws are never put upon a civil basis at all—they are confessedly religious in purpose.
People make a great mistake when they ask for such legislation in order that they may be freed from competition. “The sphere which the State invades it dominates; the jurisdiction which it takes it keeps.” If the State may forbid labor by a certain class, it may forbid it by all; and if it may forbid Sunday labor, and it certainly can do it only on religious grounds, it may also forbid pleasure upon that day. To this latter the barbers would doubtless object, as many of them are among the number who desire to make Sunday simply a holiday. But when they have asked the legislature to prohibit labor upon that day, they cannot with any consistency protest against an act prohibiting pleasure-seeking also; so that even granting that the barbers could be benefited by an act forbidding them to carry on business on Sunday, it must be admitted that they lose more in the end than they gain by consenting to the violation of the principle of non-interference with the reserved rights of the people.
That government is best which governs least and yet preserves the natural, inalienable rights of the people. Men should be self-reliant and self-governing, and should be permitted to use their time as they see fit; provided in so doing they do not trench upon the equal rights of others.
California should be devoutly thankful that the Supreme Court has declared the mischievous barber law unconstitutional; and the barbers themselves should rejoice that this mischievous legislation has not been fastened permanently upon the State.
ONE DAY'S RELIGIOUS PETITIONS.
The following is from the first, second and fourth pages of the Congressional Record, of February 4, 1896, and will be of interest to our readers as showing the trend of the times:—
Mr. Sherman presented a memorial of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union of Xenia, O., remonstrating against the passage of Senate Bill No. 1055, providing for military education in the public schools; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.
He also presented sundry petitions of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union of Cincinnati, Dayton, and Troy, in the State of Ohio, and a petition of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union of Deposit, N. Y., praying for the passage of a Sunday-rest law for the District of Columbia; which was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.
He also presented a petition of the Christian Endeavor Society of Dayton, O., praying for the repeal of the ninety-day divorce law of Oklahoma and Arizona Territories, and for substituting in its stead the stricter divorce law of the District of Columbia; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
He also presented a petition of the Christian Endeavor Society of Dayton, Ohio, praying for the enactment of legislation establishing an impartial commission for the investigation of the labor problem; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor.
He also presented a petition of the Christian Endeavor Society of Dayton, Ohio, praying for the enforcement of the compulsory education law in the District of Columbia; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor.
He also presented a petition of the Christian Endeavor Society of Dayton, Ohio, praying for the passage of the so-called Erdman Bill, substituting voluntary arbitration for railway strikes; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor.
He also presented a petition of the Ministerial Association of the eastern portion of the Heidelberg Classes of the Reformed Church of Bucyrus, Ohio, praying for the enactment of legislation in the interests of morality, education, labor, etc.; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor.
He also presented a petition of the Ministerial Association of Galion, Ohio, praying for the enactment of legislation in the interest of morality, for a Sunday-rest law, for the repeal of the Oklahoma divorce law, for compulsory education, for the arbitration of labor strikes, and for investigation of the labor problem;188which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor.
Mr. Cockerell—I present a petition in behalf of the Missouri Woman's Christian Temperance Union, of Kansas City, Mo., praying relief for those who are suffering in Armenia. I move that the petition lie on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Mills presented a petition of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union of Granbury, Texas, praying for the enactment of a Sunday-rest law for the District of Columbia; which was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.
Mr. Vest presented resolutions adopted by the Society of Christian Endeavor of Lexington, Mo., favoring the enactment of legislation by Congress to prevent Armenian outrages; which were ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. Cullom presented a petition of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union of Oneida, Ill., praying for the enactment of a Sunday-rest law for the District of Columbia; which was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.
The total number of petitions presented on this occasion in the Senate alone (those we quote were all in the Senate) was seventy-seven. Fifteen, or nearly one in five, either asked for religious legislation or else emanated from some religious body seeking as such to influence legislation.
The fact that one is a Christian does not necessarily debar him from participation in the affairs of government, nor take away his right of petition; but neither does it give him any greater rights than belong to other men.
A man's religion should control his political action only so far as to make that action honest and straightforward and in due and practical recognition of the equal rights of others. Neither nature nor grace affords the slightest warrant to any man or set of men to use religion as a political force or to use political force for the furtherance of religion.
IS IT TRUE CHRISTIAN ENDEAVOR?
By S.
A RECENT step taken by the “Law and Order League” in Jersey City for the purpose of securing evidence against Sunday liquor sellers in that city, has been to secure young men and boys of the Epworth League and Christian Endeavor societies, to visit the saloons on Sunday and sample the beer and whiskey, in the guise of customers. For this course the league has been severely criticised, which criticisms, says the New York Sun, of June 1, called out a champion of the league in the person of the Rev. Dr. John L. Scudder, pastor of the Tabernacle, who prefaced his Sunday evening sermon by some remarks in answer to the question, “Should Christian Endeavorers do Detective Work?” In these prefatory remarks the speaker said:—
There is only one way to get the evidence, and that is to order up the liquor. This was a severe cross for many Christian men to bear, and many refused when spoken to on the subject, for entering saloons is essentially distasteful to Christian Endeavorers; but modern Christians are not cowards, and they realize that Christianity involves cross-bearing and fighting disagreeable battles for righteousness’ sake.
Is it true Christian endeavor and Christian cross-bearing to enter liquor saloons and call for and taste the various intoxicants for sale, for the purpose of getting evidence against the seller? True Christian cross-bearing is denial of self; and while it may be claimed that these were acts of self-denial to the persons selected to perform them, it cannot be truthfully said that Christian self-denial ever calls an individual to handle the devil’s fire. The inspired warning, “Go not into the way of evil men,” applies to all. The best of men are not above temptation, and especially may this be said of young men and boys, such as make up the membership of these societies.
Vice is naturally abhorred at first sight, but—
“Seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”
We shall be much mistaken if these young people can continue to enter the haunts of vice and put the devil’s fire in their bosoms without receiving injury. The “cross” involved in such an act tends naturally to become eliminated as the act is repeated. The “battle for righteousness” in behalf of others, becomes a struggle for the mastery with the demon of self within.
Nor is the object to be attained by this “detective kind of ‘Christian endeavor’” one which is at all contemplated in the bearing of the cross of Christ. For the bearing of his cross is not for the purpose of imposing civil pains and penalties upon any, but in order that the bearer may himself become a partaker of the divine nature, and spiritually identified with Christ. See Gal. 2:20.
Some other remarks of Dr. Scudder in this connection are fraught with unhappy significance. Speaking of those who had criticised such methods of opposing evil on the part of the church, he said (italics ours):—
They would have the church fold its hands in holy contemplation and discourse somniferously about the hereafter, and the moment live Christians leap in the arena and fight sin along practical lines they inform us we are transgressing our proper limits. But it so happens that we discredit them as a source of authority, and consider them a point or two off in their theology. They little understand the virile nature of twentieth century religion and its determination to maintain righteousness by positive and aggressive methods. We understand our business and need no points from law-breaking saloon keepers and their backers and sympathizers.
In this language it is plainly implied that the plain preaching of the Word of God is not a practical way of fighting sin. But the Scriptures tell us that it is a practical way and the only way to battle with sin successfully. They tell us that the power of the word of God is infinitely greater than the power of man. See Ps. 33: 6, 9; Eph. 6: 17; 2 Cor. 10: 3–5; Heb. 4:12. The battle is already lost when we have reached the conclusion that the preaching of the all-powerful Word is not the only successful way of contending with unrighteousness.
The language quoted also implies that “virile” Christianity manifests itself by such methods of procedure as these which have substituted the machinery of the civil power for the word and grace of God in the combat with sin; for it is always against sin that Christianity wars. But our country may well sigh for more of that Christianity exhibited in the godly lives of our old-time ancestors, who had implicit faith in God’s word and knew nothing about such methods of “Christian endeavor” as those lately devised in the interests of “law and order.”
In concluding, Dr. Scudder said, “Law and order are not meaningless words, and a combination of churches is an organization not to be trifled with.” As a political power, no doubt a combination of churches is “not to be trifled with.” The churches have shown already, on several occasions, what their power is when combined for the purpose of securing legislation from Congress and other political bodies. But are politics and civil government the proper sphere of the church of Christ? While the church combination is showing that as a political power it is “an organization not to be trifled with,” we may be sure that it is accomplishing but a trifling amount in the work of evangelizing the world, set forth in Christ’s great commission to his followers.
