Volume I Part 15 (2/2)
_A_. I have already said that my preaching consists in teaching what is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, that is, the Word of G.o.d, which all the most distinguished early Fathers in the Eastern Church, especially Chrysostom and Athanasius, declared to be the only school of G.o.dliness, the fountain at which all Christians ought to drink; and if the Eastern Church acknowledges these sacred Scriptures as the foundations of its religion, I cannot be guilty of the charge, for I have said nothing against those bases. As to the superstructure, what has at various times been built up on these foundations, I have nothing to say at this time. That is quite another question, and one which the accusation does not touch. But against the foundations themselves, as already explained, I can have said nothing, because I preach that Word, which contains them. And besides, I consider it a sin for any one to preach anything of his own, and that it is the duty of every one to preach only what is contained in the Word of G.o.d.”
The judge then said, ”The examination is ended.”1
1 _Missionary Herald_, 1851, p. 268.
Dr. King, sometime before, had prepared an ”Exposition of an Apostolical Church,” founded entirely on the Word of G.o.d, which was printed in Cambridge, Ma.s.sachusetts. This was extensively distributed, and was denounced by the Greek hierarchy in Constantinople, Smyrna, and Thessalonica. In September, the Council of Judges in the criminal court of Athens, a sort of grand jury, presented him for trial in that court upon the allegations, that for two years he had ”preached within his house in this place publicly, in the exposition of the sacred Scriptures, that baptism is no other than a simple symbol, and consequently it is indifferent whether men are sprinkled or immersed; that those who eat a little bread, and drink a little wine, are foolish in thinking that they will be saved by this communion; that the most holy mother of G.o.d is not ever virgin; that those who wors.h.i.+p her, as also the other divine images, are idolaters; that he does not accept the sacred Councils, and the things ordained by them in religion, and handed down by tradition to the orthodox Christians in later times; that the fathers and the saints of the orthodox Oriental Church of Christ were deceivers, and as a consequence of this, they brought in divers heresies; that holy baptism is no other than an external sign for Christians;” etc.
There were successive appeals, as in the former case, up to the Areopagus; but with similar results, except that the highest court decided that the penal law did not apply to one half of the allegations. It was hoped that the matter would end here, but a trial was ordered for the 5th of March, 1852.
Great pains were taken, by the evil-disposed, to excite a tumult when Dr. King was brought before the court; and the head of police, while giving a.s.surance of protection, advised him to go to the court-house in a carriage. This he declined. After a prayer with his family, he took his little son by the hand, and, in company with an American friend, walked first to the house of Mr. Pellicas, one of his lawyers. There he was told, that the King's attorney, in view of the excitement among the people, desired him to wait till he could enter the court with some hope of safety. But Dr. King did not wish a postponement on account of the excitement, of which there would always be more or less, and so they set out again on foot for the court-room. It was with difficulty they pressed through the crowd, in which the peculiar hats of many priests were to be seen on all sides. Our missionary declares, that he felt very happy, though not indifferent to his position, in the full belief, that the result would be good.
The charge of reviling the dogmas of the Eastern Church, which was now their only dependence, was not proved. So the King's attorney had recourse to the ”Exposition of an Apostolical Church,” printed in the United States, to the ”Defense,” printed in 1845, and to the ”Farewell Letter,” printed twenty-seven years before, which formed no part of the indictments, on the a.s.sumption that he must have preached the sentiments they contained. But even so, his preaching would be no more a reviling of the dogmas of the Greek Church, than any other exposition of the doctrines held by the millions of Protestants in Europe and America. His lawyers made an able defense, though embarra.s.sed by the evident bias of the President of the court. After a trial of six hours, Dr. King was adjudged to be guilty, and was condemned to fifteen days' imprisonment, to pay the costs of court, and then to be banished from the Kingdom of Greece.
The court-house was soon cleared by the soldiers, but such a crowd awaited Dr. King without, that the military officer in charge proposed to call a carriage, and the King's attorney consented to his returning to his own house for the night, rather than going immediately to prison. He went out through a back door, and the officer ordered two or three soldiers to mount the carriage before and behind. Just as they entered the carriage, a rush was made by the crowd, but the soldiers drove them back with their bayonets.
He had been arraigned for violating the seventeenth and eighteenth articles of the Penal Code; yet the attorney failed to prove the ”reviling,” contemplated in the seventeenth article, and the Areopagus had decided that the eighteenth did not apply to the case.
So that Dr. King was adjudged to be deserving of imprisonment and banishment, simply for preaching the Gospel in his own house, as held by all evangelical Christians. Yet the government claimed to be tolerant of all religions.
On the 9th of March, Dr. King entered the prison of Athens, where were one hundred and twenty-five prisoners, occupying eleven small rooms, eight of which were ten or eleven feet square, with from eight to twelve prisoners in each, the other three being larger.
”My heart is not sorrowful,” he writes on the same day, ”but full of joy. I consider this as one of the brightest days of my life. With my whole heart I thank the Lord Jesus Christ, that I am counted worthy to suffer shame for his name, and for the truths which he has taught. The morning before I came to the prison, I read with great interest, yea, I may say with tears of joy, Hebrews xi., xii., and xiii.; and I felt constrained to render to the Most High ascriptions of praise for mercies, rather than to seek freedom from trials. My princ.i.p.al pet.i.tion to G.o.d, during all these days of excitement and triumph of the enemy, has been, that the name of the Lord may be glorified in me, and that the cause of truth may finally prevail.”
On the 10th, having appealed to the Areopagus, he was removed to the police office, where he was treated kindly, and his friends had liberty to call upon him freely. Three days later, becoming ill of a fever, he was removed to his own house, where he remained, under a guard provided for the purpose, till the decision of the Areopagus was announced on the 25th. The sentence of the Criminal Court was confirmed.
By the more intelligent in the community, whether native or foreign, and by several of the ablest journals, the proceedings of the court were strongly condemned. Twelve Greek lawyers, several of whom had held the highest offices in Greece and were among the most distinguished of their profession, signed their names to a letter, declaring their entire dissent from its proceedings.1
1 See _Annual Report_ for 1852, p. 55, and _Missionary Herald_ for 1852, p. 239.
Execution of the sentence of banishment was delayed by a protest from Dr. King, in the name of the United States Government, indicating his intention to appeal to that government. The time had now fully come for extending to him the protection due to missionaries in their just rights and privileges. There can be no doubt, that missionaries have equal claims to protection with their fellow-citizens, in the lawful pursuit of their profession as preachers of the Gospel.1 In 1842, Daniel Webster, being then Secretary of State, instructed Commodore Porter, Minister Resident at Constantinople, ”to omit no occasion, where his interference in behalf of American missionaries might become necessary or useful, and to extend to them the proper succor and attentions of which they might stand in need, in the same manner that he would to other citizens of the United States, who as merchants should visit or reside in Turkey.”2 Happily Mr. Webster was again in the same high office. Twenty-nine years before, while the Greeks were fighting for their independence, he had eloquently pleaded their cause in the House of Representatives of the United States, and procured their recognition as a nation by our government. An appeal now came to him from an American citizen of the highest respectability, suffering oppression by that very nation which he had so befriended. There being no diplomatic agent of the United States in Greece, the Hon.
George P. Marsh, the learned and able Minister Resident at Constantinople, was instructed to proceed to Athens in one of the s.h.i.+ps of war, and inquire into the case, with one or more of the national vessels in that neighborhood subject to his order. Having a competent knowledge of the Greek language, Mr. Marsh entered upon his delicate mission in August, 1852, and prosecuted it till the arrival of his successor in the Constantinople emba.s.sy, late in 1853. During this time, Mr. Webster died, and was succeeded by Edward Everett; and he again by Mr. Marcy, on the accession of President Pierce. Mr. Webster's letter of instruction, dated April 29, 1852, states the case clearly, as it does also the rights of missionaries. Mr. Everett's letter, dated February 5, 1853, gives the opinion of President Fillmore, based on Mr. Marsh's report of the case. ”Although the forms of the law may in general have been observed,” Mr. Everett writes, ”it is quite plain, that Dr. King was not tried for any offense clearly defined by the law of Greece; that his trial was in many respects unfairly and illegally conducted; that the const.i.tution and laws of Greece guarantee a full toleration of all religious opinions; and that there is no proof that Dr. King has exceeded the just limits of the liberty of speech implied in such toleration.” ”Either the sound and safe maxims of criminal jurisprudence,” he adds, ”which prevail in this country, are unknown to the jurisprudence of Greece, or her tribunals were presided over by persons who entertained very false notions of the judicial character, or there are prejudices against Dr. King, which, in this case at least, corrupted the fountains of justice. It may have been in part produced by all three, and there is reason to suppose that such is the case. This state of things unavoidably destroys all confidence in the Greek courts, as far as Dr. King is concerned, and compels the President to regard their decision in this case as unjust and oppressive.”3 He repeats the declaration of Mr. Webster, that missionaries are ent.i.tled to all the protection, which the Law of Nations allows to be extended to citizens who reside in foreign countries in the pursuit of their lawful business. Mr. Marsh was to communicate to the government of Greece the decided opinion of the President, ”that Dr. King did not have a fair trial, and that consequently the sentence of banishment ought immediately to be revoked.”
1 See _Proceedings at the Annual Meeting of the Board_ in 1841, pp.
36-39.
2 See _Memorial Volume of the First Fifty Years of the A. B. C. F.
M._, p. 201.
3 _Congressional Doc.u.ments_, No. 9, Senate, 1854, p. 6.
The piece of ground in Athens purchased by Dr. King in 1829, was at that time little prized by Turks or Greeks. But after the capital became permanently fixed there, the land had become a most desirable part of the city, as it commanded an un.o.bstructed view of many of the finest ancient monuments and interesting localities of Athens.
For this reason it was early selected by the government as the site of a national church. The law required the value of all land thus taken, to be paid for before it was put to use. Years pa.s.sed, and the government neither made use of it, nor allowed the owner to build upon it, and yet refused all compensation. This act of gross injustice--so gross that it even subjected the government to the suspicion of sinister aims in the prosecution of Dr. King,1--was one of the points referred to the President of the United States, and he declared his conviction, that compensation ought immediately to be made by the government of Greece.
1 _Senate Doc.u.ments_, p, 184.
<script>