PREFACE. XXiU
misrepresentations, the author Father Chamich has ere* ated many opponents among the Armenians, who have severely censured him for his garbled statements. As the present abridgment is a Mirror of his enlarged history, a similar spirit of unfairness pervades this volume. If I were to attempt a refutation of all the author's mis* representations of the works of our ancient writers, the size of the present volumes would be increased to double their size. Consequently, passing over the tedious length of these religious disputes, I think it sufficient to bring the following example, whereby the reader can be able to judge of the whole.
According to the chronology of the author, Johannes Oznensis the Philosopher, was raised to the pontifical chair of Armenia in the year of Christ 718. All the Armenian and foreign historians agree in saying, that this pontiff was an inveterate enemy of the council of Chalcedon, and wrote many things against the Chalcedo* nians, several of whom he banished from the country of Armenia. In consequence of this opposition, Johannes Oznensis is called a heretic by the Romanists, who, to* gether with the Armenian Papists anathematize him in their churches, considering him as a cause of the division of the Armenian church from that of Rome. Father Michael Chamich asserts in his enlarged history, that Johannes Oznensis had accepted the council of Chalce- don, contrary to the assertions of the historians who then flourished in Armenia. In a most laboured and tedious disquisition of about 100 pages, the author ^deavours to persuade the reader that there must be
�� �
