THE PRINCIPLE OF SOCIAL EQUALITY PUT TO THE TEST.
Madame de Meglior continued to reside with her niece, and made herself
so agreeable, that the arrangement promised to become permanent.
Euphrasie continued to exhibit the same impassive exterior; in
appearance she was but the slave of her mother's will. The duchess
regarded her as almost a nonentity, at least after the fears excited
by Eugene's religious tendencies had in some measure subsided.
But Annie! "a change had come o'er the spirit of her dream." She,
always disposed to romance, was unguarded now. Formerly, Adelaide had
acted as a check upon Annie's fondness for equality, fraternity,
liberty. Now that that restraint was withdrawn, she imprudently
allowed Alfred Brookbank to treat her more and more as an equal. It is
doubtful whether, even if she had reflected, she would have foreseen
the consequences, for in her most republican moods, she never forgot
that she was a Miss Godfrey of Estcourt Hall; and though to amuse
herself and pass away the time, she was willing enough to discuss
equality and the "rights of man," she certainly expected to receive
full credit for the condescension in allowing to an inferior the
privilege of such "free discussion" with herself. Home was dull, her
sister gone, and her cousin gone too: her mother was always ailing
now, and her father, ever newly absorbed by some pet plan, kept his
darling Hester {336} constantly at his side. Annie was alone, and
somewhat desolate: Alfred Brookbank always on the look out for an
excuse to bear her company and amuse her. Annie was becoming
accustomed to his attentions, without attaching any more definite
meaning to them than she would to the attentions of any one of the
numerous dependents of her father's house, when, one day, he took
advantage of a private interview to make a formal profession of love.
This was indeed a surprise; for, though any one else might have
expected it, Annie had never once thought of such a probability.
Marriages in her family had always been conducted so differently.
Besides, she had never looked on Alfred as other than patronized. She
had not dreamt of such presumption, though she had allowed him freely
to broach in her presence his doctrine of the "inherent equality" of
such individuals as are of equal calibre of intellect, and of the
right of all mankind at large to freedom and equality. Her manner of
receiving this declaration was certainly not very flattering; for she
drew herself up in a somewhat haughty manner, and replied that the
proceeding was so unexpected, so uncalled for, that she did not know
how to answer it, for Mr. Alfred must be aware that the difference in
their social position rendered such a proposal unanswerable.
"To one of ordinary mind, perhaps," said Alfred, somewhat chafed; "but
to one like yourself, endowed with an understanding above the petty
conventionalities--"
"I am not above recognizing my duty to my family, Mr. Alfred, and you
must be aware that no one member of it would consent to this."
"Nay, if you only allowed me to hope I had any interest in you, I am
sure Mr. Godfrey would not refuse your wishes."
"I have no wish to trouble him on the subject," was the cold
rejoinder, somewhat haughtily expressed.
"I may not hope then--"
"You may hope nothing on this subject whatever. Let it be dropped now
and forever. If I can aid your prospects--"
"You will patronize me. Thank you, Miss Annie, but patronage from you
would suit my temper badly. I had thought there was one being in the
world superior to the influences of prejudice, of conventional
distinctions; but you, too, deem me an inferior, because I boast not
of paltry wealth or of gentle descent. Inferior as you deem me, you
shall yet feel my power--yes, my power!"
His language and his told were those of a madman, and his flashing
eyes gave him a frenzied appearance. Trembling with rage, the quondam
lover left the presence of his adored, meditating in bitterness the
most direful revenge.
Had Annie put any faith in his professions of love to herself, she
would have been undeceived by this burst of rage. Love had not
animated him--that was apparent enough; his disappointment was but a
foiled ambition; yet after permitting upward of two years' attentions,
conscience told her he should have met with a less haughty rebuff. The
retrospect showed her she had encouraged him. She had then partly
drawn upon herself a merited rebuke. She could but acknowledge this,
and, humiliated, Annie would willingly have done her part in repairing
the evil she had occasioned by promoting his advancement in life but
this was beyond her power. The next news she heard was that Alfred
Brookbank had prevailed on his father to advance him a large sum of
money, and had set sail for America.
Time passed on. Estcourt Hall became duller every day, and beyond the
arrival of a new family in the neighborhood there was nothing of
interest outside. This family consistent of a dowager Lady Conway,
her son and daughter. They had purchased "a place" near the sea for
the benefit of Lady Conway's health. Their own estates, or rather the
son's estates, were in a neighboring shire. They {337} were not
intellectual, but they were wealthy and of good family, and in time an
intimacy sprang up between them and the Godfreys, none knew how or
why, and in a few months after, to the surprise of every one, "The
Morning Post" announced that Sir Philip Conway, Bart., had led to the
altar Miss Annie Godfrey, second daughter of E. Godfrey, Esq., of
Estcourt Hall.
The marriage was strictly private. Eugene left Cambridge for a day or
two to be present at it, but he soon returned to college. Of the
nature of his studies no one guessed. He did go in for honors, as his
father would have wished. Nevertheless his tutors made a good report
of him, and the secluded life he led made many suppose that he was
pursuing very deeply some pet hobby of his own.
Indeed, this was partly true; for although at his first return to
Cambridge he was much dejected, he soon began to reflect that
Euphrasie was very young; that she not only was now completely
dependent, but that she was likely to continue so; and that the most
unlikely thing that could happen, was the gratification of her wish to
enter a convent. He trusted to time to teach her this, and a new hope
sprang up within him, and that, too, at the very moment that his
friend M. Bertolot, began to hope he had mastered his feelings for
Euphrasie, and become reconciled to the inevitable separation.
Eugene spoke not of his love, but with renewed ardor he addressed
himself to study the most important relationships that can exist for
man. Guided by the counsels of M. Bertolot, he mastered the evidences
of Revelation and then assured himself that that revelation, _once
given_, was divinely protected: that that which was intended to shed
light on the human soul, darkened by sin, was not a dubious _ignis
fatuis_, subject to human vagaries, but an unerring guide and an
unfailing lamp. We will not follow him through his arguments now, as
we shall have occasion to make him speak for himself on a future
occasion.
Time passed on. Annie had been married a year or more. Truth to say,
she was somewhat _ennuyée_ at present. Her husband resided chiefly on
his estate, and this was at some distance from Estcourt Hall. There
was little society in the neighborhood, and Sir Philip's tastes
corresponded very little with her own.
The young baronet was perfectly well-intentioned, but neither refined
nor cultivated. The society of his farm-bailiff, the walk to the
fatting-stalls, the talk about the respective fattening qualities of
turnips and mangold-wurzels, the speculations on the relative value of
farm-yard manure, of guano, or of soot, and dissertations whether each
or all should be applied as top-dressing or should be worked into the
soil; such were his occupations, and sooth to say, he excelled in the
pursuits he had adopted. No beasts at Smithfield could show finer
points than Sir Philip's: no farm was in finer model order: his tanks,
his barns, his under-drainings, and his irrigations, together with his
prize cattle of every description, were the admiration of the
agricultural world. He was truly a "lord of the animal creation," and
he prided himself on being so. Of intellectual culture he had small
appreciation; but as he had great ideas of order, and deemed himself
master by right of "the masculine being the most worthy gender,"
(which was the only idea he retained from his Latin grammar, that had
been vainly endeavored to be flogged into him at school,) he would ill
have brooked interference with his rights. To him, a wife was a
necessary appendage, nothing more; as to allowing a woman to dictate
to him, the thing was absurd. He was "a lord of creation," and though
he wished the world to pay due respect to Lady Conway, because she was
his wife, yet it is questionable whether he himself would have allowed
a woman a voice on any {338} subject beyond those connected with
domestic economy, and even here he reserved to himself the power of
veto. He loved his wife, certainly, because he thought it was a part
of his duty to do so; besides, he really had some sort of animal
affection for her. Annie was well-made, of good birth, well-educated;
to say the least, he was as proud of her as he had been of the animal
which had won him the first prize at the Smithfield cattle-show. It
was part of his system to have the best specimens of animal existence
domesticated on his estate, and Annie did not disgrace his other
stock.
But Annie; poor Annie! She was alone in the world, though surrounded
by everything that could procure bodily ease or bodily enjoyment. She
had horses to ride, she had a carriage to ride in, she had gardens and
hot houses, plantations and shrubberies; but to her cultivated mind
where was the response? To the poetry that strove within her for
expression, where was the listener?
"The thought that cannot speak Whispers the o'erfraught heart, and
bids it break!"
But Annie's was not a spirit to be easily broken. Naturally
expressive, she would have sought interest even among the cottagers,
had not her husband's jealousy forbidden it. He was a _magnifico_, and
he liked not that his wife should be more popular than himself. He
wished to gain the name of being a liberal benefactor to his laborers
and cottagers, and would not share his reputation even with the being
to whom he had plighted his faith for life. Annie was thus thrown on
her own resources. Brought up intellectually, she found a resource in
books; and though at times cast down, she rallied again, for youth is
buoyant, elastic, hopeful, and a literary taste carries in itself a
wonderful power of compensation. But Annie was no dreamer, and the
ideas that suggested themselves demanded action, which as yet they
were denied: yet Annie read on, and thought on. The time for action
will one day surely come, she thought.
"Lady Conway," said Sir Philip one day at the breakfast table, "do you
know any thing of a Mr. Alfred Brookbank?"
Annie almost started; she certainly changed color, but Sir Philip was
not observing her; so she answered, "Yes--no--yes; that is, Sir
Philip, the family lived at Estcourt, and sometimes visited at the
Hall."
"He has bought old Gordon's land, and is about to become our dear
neighbor."
"Indeed! How did he get the money? He was poor when I knew him."
"He has made very fortunate speculations in America; besides which he
succeeds to his father's property".
"Is Dr. Brookbank dead?"
"He is, and has left a considerable sum behind him; he economize
unknown to his family, it seems."
"But even so, there is an Elder brother."
"No, he died in America; of this there is certain news."
"In America!" said Annie. "I did not know he was ever there".
"No? Well, it seems he ran off with a neighbor's wife, took her to
America, got tired of her, left her, and went off to the woods. There
he lived some time, but one day was found at the foot of some rapids,
drowned."
"But how did his family know this?"
"Some stranger to that district identified the body and gave evidence
before the presiding magistrate, after which they searched the shanty
in which the man had lived, and found papers corroborative of his
being Walter Brookbank, and these papers, with sundry articles, they
sent home to his family, according to the address given by the
stranger, and they were found to have belonged to Walter."
"Strange concurrence of events! Who was the stranger?"
"He gave his name as William Jones."
{339}
"Jones! I suppose Smith, Brown, or White would have served his purpose
equally as well?"
"Why do you suppose that Jones was not the man's name, my lady?"
"I do not know, only it seems to me a most improbable tale."
"Improbable! Why, the family believe it, at any rate."
"And the second son is to be established in the neighborhood?"
"Yes; he intends to occupy himself in superintending land. I have some
thoughts of employing him myself."
"I thought you said he inherited considerable property."
"Yes, but he has determined to let his mother enjoy the income arising
from the paternal estate, and has also promised to care for his
sisters' fortunes. Dr. Brookbank died intestate, it seems, but this
young man says that shall make no difference. He appears to be
actuated by very high principle".
Annie did not answer. She was uneasy; especially at the idea of
Alfred's managing her husband's affairs. She feared some sinister
motive. Her husband noticed the discontented expression of her
countenance.
"Do you not like Mr. Alfred Brookbank?" He asked.
"Well, I hardly know," said Annie; "but at least I do not consider him
a man of business. He was not when I knew him; besides, he is young
for an agent; an older man might suit you better, Sir Philip."
"I am not sure of that; old men are apt to be obstinate and to have
plans of their own; I choose to look into my affairs myself, and to
make my own arrangements; so that his inexperience signifies but
little, provided he is industrious, and that his American success
proves him to be."
Annie knew not what objection to offer, and a dark foreboding came
over; was this in any way diminished when, some few weeks afterward,
Mr. Brookbank was announced, and Sir Philip, instead of receiving him
in his library according to his wont with gentlemen visitors, directed
him to be shown into the parlor, in which he and Lady Conway were
sitting. Annie would have escaped had it been practicable, but as her
departure would have attracted Sir Philip's observation, she thought
it more prudent to remain.
Alfred entered, and his bearing was so respectful, so distant, that
Annie would have been reassured, had she not felt that at intervals,
when Sir Philip was not looking, Alfred fixed his eyes upon her with
the gaze of a basilisk; and once when she chanced to look at him she
thought the expression of his features perfectly demoniacal. What she
had to fear she knew not, but that she did fear something was certain.
It was not only Alfred that had come to reside in the neighborhood;
his mother and two sisters accompanied him. The rectory of Estcourt
had passed to another, and there was no mansion on the paternal acres
suited for the refined tastes of the family, so they had come to
reside with Alfred in his newly purchased dwelling. A certain degree
of visiting between the families would have been necessary for old
acquaintance sake, but more soon became inevitable from the ascendency
which Alfred shortly obtained over the mind of Sir Philip. He
flattered himself into the baronet's good graces, and made himself so
agreeable that Sir Philip began to think it impossible to live without
him. Annie tried in vain to stem the torrent of intimacy, that
threatened almost to domesticate Alfred in her house. Sir Philip was
far too wise a man to be governed by his wife, so he listened to none
of her remonstrances; and at times there was a look of triumph, as
well as of hatred, in Alfred's features, that made her almost tremble
in his presence. Annie was naturally strong-minded, yet she could not
overcome this sensation, which was almost a martyrdom, particularly as
she suspected Alfred was aware of the torment she underwent. She wrote
to {340} her aunt, who was still at Durimond Castle, to request that
she and Euphrasie would come and spend some time with her, hoping to
gain courage in their society, and perhaps protection; but the answer
was unpropitious:
"The Duke of Durimond had returned home seriously unwell, and at that
moment it would be improper and unkind to leave the duchess without
society."
Annie must, then, endure life as best she could. Alfred found himself
visiting at Sir Philip's on terms of apparent equality, and often a
party was made up of such society as the neighborhood afforded,
expressly for the purpose of introducing the family so obnoxious to
Annie. Nay, she was in a manner compelled to take her turn in visiting
them, repugnant as it was to her feelings.
On these occasions Annie behaved with condescension and politeness,
but with nothing more. She received Alfred with the most formal
courtesy; he returned her salute with one of apparently the most
profound respect. Few more words were interchanged than were
absolutely necessary.
It was the current opinion that Lady Conway liked not the society of
her inferiors, and Sir Philip, participating in the idea, strove to
combat it, although he was no leveller in general; but in Alfred's
case he thought the prejudice she entertained ought to yield to such
superior merit.
One evening a social party met at Sir Philip's. Singing and dancing
were going on; but Alfred was unusually dull, he could not be
prevailed upon to join in any amusement. The baronet, fancying his
wife's coldness might have had some influence in producing this
effect, said to her in the hearing of all the party:
"My lady, was Mr. Brookbank so dull when he visited at Estcourt Hall?
Did he never sing to you there?"
"Mr. Brookbank has a very fine voice," was the reply; "I have often
heard him sing beautiful melodies."
"Nay, then, call upon him, in memory of 'Auld lang syne,' to sing for
you, my lady; no other has the power to arouse him to-night."
Annie turned to Alfred and said in a dignified manner, "You here Sir
Philip's request, Mr. Brookbank; will you consider it mine?"
Alfred started, looked at her, and bowed. He answered in a tone so low
that only she could hear its purport:
"You have asked for a madman's song, my lady; what else can memory
produce?"
Declining the offer of an accompaniment, he seated himself at the
piano, and drew forth notes so wild, so terrific, that the whole party
were electrified; then assuming the mien and gesture of one crazed in
his intellect, his loud and clear voice gave full force to the
following:
Oh! bid me not recall the past,
Though calm appear my features now
Hid though from sight the fevered blast,
That caused the spirit's overthrow.
'Tis not in mortal power again
Youth's buoyant transport to recall;
'Tis hushed--forever hushed--the strain
That could with Schilling the heart enthral.
Visions of truth have passed me by,
Mocking the sense, with shapes unreal,
Filling each pulse with melody,
Thrilling the heart with joys ideal.
And freedom, independence, love.
In dreams have risen to my sight--
In dreams essayed my heart to prove.
They vanished at return of light.
And earth is all unholy now.
Venal its joys!--its highest bliss
To lay that false ideal low--
To crush the hope of happiness.
Love gone! one wish doth yet remain--
One thought the maddened brain to whet:
Joy vanished! Its fell rival--pain--
Forbids the spirit to forget.
Pain, pain triumphant, speaks of power
To seize the serpent's foulest sting.
Therewith to bid the tyrant cower.
Back to return the poisoned spring.
Yes! I'll unveil those mocking forms,
Those shapes of grace, all seat from hell;
I will reveal the latent storms
That 'neath the placid surface dwell.
Thus proudly I'll unveil deceit;
Thus fearfully I'll stifle pain--
The mask torn off--made known the cheat--
Ne'er shall the false one rest again!
With trust destroyed, with pleasure gone,
Earth yields the soul no fitting mate;
But standing fearless and alone
The vengeful spirit lives--_to hate_.
{341}
The emphasis that was given to this wild song struck terror to the
hearts of the hearers, especially as the singer himself seemed frantic
with excitement When it was finished a pause ensued, as if all present
wanted to take breath; and Sir Philip found voice to say:
"Why, where on earth, Brookbank, did you learn such a ditty as that?
You have absolutely frightened the young ladies; they think you half
mad, yourself."
"It is the lay of a madman in good earnest," said Alfred, "he who
composed it was crazed by disappointed love; I sing it now and then as
a warning to young ladies not to be too cruel."
He looked round the room for Annie as he spoke; but Annie was no
longer there; every line of that song had spoken volumes to her, in
telling her what a bitter enemy she had raised, and as the last word
vibrated on the singer's lips, she left the apartment. When she
returned she was very pale. She felt conscious that Alfred was
watching her every movement, and that feeling made her miserable.
TO BE CONTINUED.
------
From Chambers's Journal.
AUTUMN.
Autumn is dying, alas! Sweet Autumn is near to her death;
All through the night may be felt her languid scented breath
Coming and going in gasps long-drawn by the shivering trees,
Out on the misty moors, and down by the dew-drenched leas.
Autumn is dying, alas! Her face grows pallid and gray;
The healthy flush of her prime is momently fading away;
And her sunken cheeks are streaked with a feverish hectic red,
As she gathers the falling leaves, and piles them about her bed.
Autumn is dying, alas! Her bosom is rifled and bare;
Gone is the grain and the fruit, and the flowers out of her hair,
Whilst her faded garment of green is blown about in the lanes,
And her ancient lover, the Sun, looks coldly down on her pains.
Autumn is dying, alas! She lies forlorn and alone;
The little chorusing birds have a broken, unhappy tone
As they fly in a crowd to the hedge when the evening mists arise,
To curtain the bed of death, and shadow the closing eyes.
Autumn is dying, alas! But to-night the silent cloud,
Dropping great tears of rain, will come and make her a shroud,
Winding it this way and that, tenderly round and around,
Then catch her away in its arms from the damp, unwholesome ground.
Autumn is dead, alas! Why alas? All her labor is done,
Perfected, finished, complete, 'neath the wind and the rain and the sun;
All the earth is enriched--the garners of men run o'er;
There is food for man and beast, and the stranger that begs at the door.
Look to thy life, O man! Swiftly approaches the night;
Whatsoever thy hand finds to do, do it with all thy might.
Labor right on to the end: let thy works go forth abroad;
Then turn thy face to the sky, and enter the "joy of thy Lord."
------
{342}
From The Dublin Review.
PROTESTANT PROSELYTISM IN EASTERN LANDS [Footnote 103]
[Footnote 103:
1. The Gospel in Turkey, being "the Tenth and Eleventh Annual
Reports of the Turkish Missions-Aid Society." Published at the
Society's Office, 7 Adam Street, W.C.; at Nisbet's; and Hatchard's,
London. 1864-5
2. The Lebanon: a History and a Diary. By David Urquhart. London;
Newby. 1860.
3. Journal of a Tour in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Greece. By
James Laird Patterson. M.A. London: Dolman. 1852.
4. Prospectus of "the Syrian Protestant College." Issued by "The
Turkish Missions-Aid Society." London. 1865.]
There are few impartial and well-informed Protestants who will not
confess that their missions throughout the world have invariably
proved to be utter failures. No matter to what sect or denomination
they belong, or from what country or association their funds are
derived, Protestant missionaries, as preachers of that gospel about
which they speak so much, never have converted, and we believe never
will, convert the heathen save by units and driblets, hardly worthy of
mention. In India, in Turkey, in Africa, among the South-Sea
Islanders, and the Red Indians of America, the result of Protestant
missionary labor is the same wherever it has been tried. The people to
whom their missionaries are sent may, and often do, become more or
less civilized from intercourse with educated men, and often learn
from those who wish to teach them higher matters, some of the arts and
appliances of European life. Some few certainly embrace what their
preachers deem to be Christianity; and occasionally, but very seldom,
small communities of nominal Christians are formed by them. But to
bring whole regions of the inhabitants to the foot of the cross--to
convert whole nations to Christianity--to prove that their converts
have embraced a system in which a man must do what is right as well as
believe what is true--are triumphs which have hitherto been reserved
for the Catholic Church, and for her alone.
But, even humanly speaking--and quite apart from all considerations of
the truth as existing only in the ark which our Lord himself
built--can we wonder at these results? Are there any who have
sojourned in, or even past through the lands where missionaries of
both religions work, and have not compared the Catholic priest with
the Protestant minister who has come out to preach the gospel in those
countries? Take, for instance, and up-country station in British
India. Is there a Protestant missionary in the place? If so, he is a
man with considerably more than the mere script and staff of apostolic
days in his possession. As wealth goes among Englishmen in the East,
he is perhaps not rich; but he is nevertheless quite at his ease, and
certainly wanting for nothing. He has his comfortable bungalow; his
wife and children are with him; the modest one-horse carriage is not
wanting for the evening drive of himself and family; nor is the
furniture of his house such as any man of moderate means need despise.
He has a regular income from the society he represents; and his
allowances are generally such as, with a little care, will allow of
his living in great comfort. And, finally, if he falls sick, too sick
to remain in the country, the means of taking him home again to
England or America are forthcoming at a moment's notice. He is
generally a good linguist; for having nothing else to do daring six
days of the week, he devotes much of his time to the study of the
vernacular. {343} He is respected by the European officers of the
station; for he is often the only person they ever see in the shape of
a clergyman. He is almost always an honest, upright man, with little
or no knowledge of the world, and, if possible, less of the natives to
whom he is sent to preach. This, however, does not matter; for, except
among his own personal servants, he makes no converts, and has but few
hearers. There is no positive harm in him, but as little active good.
He is a fair sample of a pious-minded Calvinist, but is certainly no
missionary, as Catholics understand the word. So far from having given
up anything to come out to India, both he, his wife, and
his--generally very numerous--offspring are much better off than if he
had remained in his native Lanarkshire or Pennsylvania. If he belongs
to the Church of England, he is very often a German by birth, and
appears to have "taken orders" in the establishment without having for
a moment abandoned his own peculiar theological views. Some few
Englishmen--literates, hardly ever University men--are to be found
here and there, as English Church missionaries; but these are and far
between, nor do their labors often show greater results than those of
their Presbyterian fellow-laborers. Even Dr. Littledale [Footnote
104] speaks of "_the pitiful history of Anglican missions to the
heathen_;" and he might with great truth have extended his verdict to
the missions of every other denomination of Protestantism.
[Footnote 104: See The Missionary Aspect of Ritualism, in the Church
and the World. (London: Longmans.)]
In contrast to the Protestant, take the European Catholic missionary
in the East, as apart from the native-born priest. He is invariably a
volunteer for the work, either a monk or a secular priest, who
aspiring to more severe labor in his Master's vineyard, has chosen the
hard and rugged path of a preacher of the gospel in pagan lands. As a
general rule, you will probably find him living in an humble room in
the native bazaar, and depending for his daily bread upon the charity
of his flock, or the contributions of any English Catholic officer or
civilian who may happen to be in the neighborhood. He is Catholic in
his nation as in his creed; for you may find him French, Belgian,
Italian, Spanish, Irish, or English. The present writer has met a
French nobleman and the son of a wealthy Yorkshire squire laboring and
preaching as Jesuit Missionaries to the natives of India and the poor
Irish soldiers who form so large a portion of every garrison in that
country. Is it, then, to be wondered at if, notwithstanding their
superior means and far greater worldly "respectability," the
Protestant missionaries do not succeed as ours do; or rather, that
whereas our missions are never without fruit, theirs seldom show forth
even a few sickly leaves? But the simple fact is, the missionary
spirit--or rather the spirit which leads a man, if he believes that
duty to God calls him to abandon family, wealth, comfort, health, nay,
life itself--never has, and never can be, understood by Protestants,
whether climbing the heights of ritualism, or sunk in the depths of
Socinianism. Catholics are often angry with Protestants, because the
latter are uncharitable respecting monks, priests, and nuns. Catholics
are wrong in being angry. Hardly any person who is not a Catholic can
understand the spirit which moves men and women to make such
sacrifices for the love of God, and counts the loss as so much gain.
The very idea of these acts is to him as color to one who has been
blind from his birth: he not only cannot understand it, but you cannot
explain it to him. This is a truth to which every convert will bear
testimony, after his eyes have been opened to the truths of God's one
and only Church, and which even few of those who have been Catholic
from their youth upward can realize.
But notwithstanding "the pitiful history" of Protestant missions to
the heathen, the work of these gentlemen in that direction is not
deserving of {344} other sentiment than that of pity. If men will
labor in fields where they can bring forth no harvest, and if others
will pay them for doing no good, the affair is theirs, not ours. They
never can do harm to the Church in those regions, for they achieve
neither good nor evil to any one, further than by giving the natives
in places where there are no Catholic missionaries a very erroneous
idea as to what the duties of a Christian teacher ought to be. Not so,
however, in those countries where Protestantism has sent its
emissaries to undermine the faith which flourished among the
inhabitants centuries before the very name of Protestant was known or
heard of. To help such undertakings, "The Turkish Missions-Aid
Society" was established and is kept up, and it is to the two reports
of that society at the head of the list of works under notice, that we
would call the especial attention of Protestants, even more than
Catholics, throughout England.
The "Laws and Regulations" of "The Turkish Missions-Aid Society" are
divided into nine clauses, and in the second of these we are told
that--
"The object of this society is not to originate a new mission, but
to aid existing evangelical missions in the Turkish empire,
especially the American."
What these "evangelicals" missions are, and to whom the "American"
missionaries are sent, we shall see presently. As a matter of course,
the society is supported by the very cream of "evangelical"
Protestantism, having Lord Shaftesbury for its President, Lord Ebury
as Vice-President, and Mr. Kinnaird as Treasurer. The subscriptions
are very large indeed, and from the "statement" furnished by the
report for 1864-65, we find that no less a sum than £24,672 5_s_, has
been sent out to the East for "native agencies" alone, since the
commencement of the society, now about eleven years ago; this, of
course, being all in addition to the very heavy sums and comfortable
salaries furnished by the American society, called the Board of
Foreign Missions, by which these missions and missionaries are
maintained.
It would appear that the "fields" occupied by these American missions
are five in number, and the present condition of them is thus
summarized in the eleventh, the latest, annual report, now before us:
[Transcriber's note: The column titles are
abbreviated as follows:
MS.--Missionaries
NA.--Native assistance
SAOS.--Stations and Outstations
CH.--Churches
CM.--Church Members
SCH.--Schools
ASA.--Average Sabbath Attendance
SMF.--Scholars male and female]
Fields MS. NA. SAOS. CH. CM. SCH. ASA. SMF.
Western 45 73 45 19 512 37 1569 1615
Turkey
Central 19 54 27 14 998 26 3125 1717
Turkey
Eastern 21 74 50 14 403 51 2201 1889
Turkey
Syrian 24 37 22 8 200 25 650 548
Nestorian 16 81 36 0 529 0 3000 0
Total 125 320 120 55 2642 139 10545 5100
These "missions" have been at work, some more, some less time; but a
fair average for the whole would be about twenty-five years. It will
be observed that in the five "fields" there are but 2,642 "church
members," or what, among Catholics, would be termed communicants. The
individuals who come under the head of "Average Sabbath Attendance,"
can no more be termed Protestant then his grace the duke of Sutherland
can be called a Catholic because he was present at the funeral of
Cardinal Wiseman. But we will grant, for the sake of argument, that
the 2,642 "church members" are earnest, consistent Protestants. If so,
and taking into calculation only the funds furnished by the Turkish
Missions-Aid Society, as quoted above, these converts I'm not very
valuable, for they have only cost something less than ten pounds each.
But if to the £24,672 5_s_., we add all that the American Board of
Missions has paid in the same period as salaries for missionaries, for
"native assistants," for schoolmasters, rents, building of churches,
printing, books, and the passage-money of missionaries and their
families to and from the East, we shall find that there is not one of
these individuals whose conversion has not one way and another cost
around three thousand pounds. At this price {345} they ought to be
staunch anti-papists, for their religion has been a very high-priced
article.
Let us turn for a moment to the second book on the list at the head of
this article. No one who has read a line of the well-known Mr.
Urquhart's many writings on political questions, will ever accuse him
of Catholic tendency on any subject. He is not a bigot, indeed; nor,
again, does he ever defendant the past history of Protestantism, for
he is too well read to uphold what every honest man, with the
knowledge of an ordinary school-boy, must condemn. In oriental
matters, moreover, Mr. Urquhart has his peculiar views; but as these
have nothing whatever to do with the questions of Protestant and
Catholic, missionary or non-missionary, we may fairly accept what he
says on the subject as the testimony of an impartial witness. Here,
then, is what he writes respecting the Catholic clergy and the
sectarian missionaries in Syria and Mount Lebanon:
"The Roman Catholic regular and secular clergy are established here
as in any other Roman Catholic country; that is to say, they are
pastors of flocks, and not missionaries, The Protestants have no
flocks, and _they are sent with a view to creating them_.
TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS are yearly subscribed in the United
States for that object, and the missionaries come here having to
justify the salaries they receive."--_The Lebanon_, vol. ii. p. 78.
The italics in the above quotation are our own, and we have thus
marked the words in order to draw attention to what every traveller in
the East, not that with the "pure gospel" media, has borne testimony.
But let us return once more to the "statement" of the five missionary
"fields" occupied by the Americans in the East. Mr. Urquhart would
never make an assertion like the above without chapter and verse for
what he says; and when the writes that TWENTY-FIVE THOUSANDS POUNDS
are yearly subscribed in the United States to support their
missionaries in the East, we may very safely consider the statement to
be true. We cannot, however, suppose that for this enormous sum the
missions in Syria only are meant, for then each one of the two hundred
"church members" with which that land is blessed would cost a small
fortune in himself. But at the same time it is impossible not to allow
that he must mean the American missionary establishments in the East
generally--the five "fields," of which a "statement" has been copied
above, and the total of whose "church members" amounts to 2,642. And
even with this calculation it will be seen that every Protestant
communicant costs the pretty little _annual_ sum of about £9 10_s_.
for his conversion, and subsequent religious instruction. We are given
to finding fault, and not unnaturally so, with the cost of the
Established Church in Ireland; but what is this when compared with the
price of the "Gospel in Turkey"? It is doubtful whether--apart,
perhaps, from some other Protestant missionary "field" of which we are
yet ignorant--the religious instruction of any people in the known
world costs as much. It is as if each ten individuals had a curate
entirely to themselves, and each hundred "church members" a very
well-paid private Anglican rector of their own. No wonder that we are
told the Syrian Protestant converts think highly of their new creed,
"the Gospel of Christ," as it is modestly called. In a country where
everything is more or less measured by a monetary standard, a convert
for whose spiritual well-being £9 10_s_. per annum is paid must
believe himself to be in a state of exaltation, considering that had
he remained in his own church, his Maronite, Greek, Greek Catholic, or
Armenian priest--having to say mass every day, to attend to some one
or two thousand parishioners probably scattered over a large
district--would consider himself very fortunate indeed if he had a
stipend of two thousand piastres a year, or about £20, of which more
than half would be paid in corn, oil, or fruits. {346} The fathers of
the Jesuit mission in Syria are allowed a thousand francs, £40, for
the travelling expenses, clothing, table, etc., of each priest when
engaged on missionary work away from the house of his community; how,
then, is it that the American missionaries cost so very much more? We
will take up our quotation from Mr. Urquhart again, at the point where
we left off:
"They (the American missionaries) have town-house and country-house,
horses to ride and an establishment and a table which speaks well
for the taste of the citizens of the United States. These are
results obtained by exertion and combination, and which, affording
enjoyment in their possession, prompt to efforts for their
retention. The persons thus raised to affluence and consideration in
a fine and luxurious climate would have to sink back to hard
conditions of life, if not to want and destitution. This relapse
presents itself as the consequence of failing in the creating of
congregations, or at least of supplying to those who subscribe the
funds plausible grounds for expecting that the consummation was
near. Looking at the country, nothing can be more painful and more
hopeless than the contest: nowhere is an ear open. As to converting
the Turks, they might just as well try to convert the Archbishop of
Canterbury.
* * * * * *
"As to converting the Jews, it would be much better for the United
States to send missionaries to Monmouth-street. There remain, then,
but the Maronite, the Greek, the Greek Catholic, Armenian, and
Nestorian churches, that is to say Christians, to convert. From the
pre-existing animosities among the Christians, the missionaries
could not so much as open their mouths to any of the members of
these communities on the subject of religion, and therefore it is a
totally different course that they have adopted. They have offered
themselves as schoolmasters; not as persons depending for
remuneration on their claims to the confidence of parents, and on
their proficiency; but supplying instruction gratuitously, and
adding thereto remuneration to the scholars in various shapes. Their
admission in this form has been forced upon the people by the
Turkish government. The condition, however, has been appended to it,
that they should not attempt to interfere with the religious belief
of the pupils. This has been going on for years; the money
continuing to be supplied on the grounds that Protestant
congregations are being created, and the proceeds enjoyed by the
missionaries on their undertaking that they shall not create them.
"The statistical under-current is, however, veiled or disguised from
the men (the missionaries) themselves. The one generation has, so to
say, succeeded the other. The new men come out occupied with their
zeal, not caring critically to examine the position in which they
stand, in entering at once on a contest already engaged. They are
filled with contempt for everything around them; and to religious
zeal, itself a sufficiently active impulse, is superadded the
necessity of furnishing reports for public meetings and periodicals
in America--reports which, failing to contain statements proselytes
secured, have at last to supply narratives of contests undertaken
and martyrdom endured."--_The Lebanon_, vol. ii. pp. 79, 80.
Our author has, in the foregoing paragraph, certainly touch most of
the weak points of Protestant missionary working. Even a cursory
analysis of the reports before thus confirm every word of this
quotation from his book. Like every Protestant account of missionary
work, the Turkish Missions-Aid Society's Reports are interlarded with
scriptural quotations, having always the same significance--that the
time for seeing the results of the labor has not yet come, but soon
will be; or, as Mr. Urquhart puts it, they supply to those who
subscribe the funds, plausible grounds for expecting that the
consummation is near.
Some years ago, a grand case of _quasi_ martyrdom was reported that
Exeter Hall, and must have been worth much money to the societies who
furnish missionary funds for the East, both in England and America. It
was the cause of many questions being asked, and much correspondence
being furnished, in both Houses of Parliament. Dispatches were
written, the Turkish Government threatened, and the life of Lord
Stratford de Redcliffe, who was then our representative at the Porte,
made a burden to him for a time with extra work. The story was that
some American Protestant missionaries, when "preaching the Gospel" on
Mount Lebanon, were stoned and otherwise ill-treated, being finally
turned out of the village in which they resided; some of them being
badly wounded. The tale was well told, but, like other histories of
the kind, was allowed to the forgotten {347} as soon as it had served
its purpose. Here is Mr. Urquhart's version of the affair, gathered as
it was in the country itself, is not unlikely to prove the true
version of the story:
"The missionaries arriving at Eden (a village not far from the
celebrated cedars of Lebanon, the inhabitants consisting entirely of
Maronite Catholics) entered a house, and disposed themselves to
occupy it. The master of the house told them that he would not and
could not receive them. They persisted, threatening him in the name
of the Turkish authorities. A great commotion ensued, and the
people, with the fear of the Turkish authorities before their eyes,
devised a plan for dislodging the missionaries by unroofing the
house. A roof in the Lebanon is not composed of tiles and rafters;
to touch a roof is a very serious affair, not to be undertaken in
wantonness. The people had the satisfaction of seeing the
missionaries mount and depart without any act on their part which
would expose them to after-retribution."--_The Lebanon_, vol ii. p.
82.
I said before, Mr. Urquhart is one of the very last men who could be
accused of any leaning toward Catholicism, still less of any affection
toward the native Christian population of Syria and Lebanon. Of this
his volumes bear witness in every chapter. But in a dozen instances he
proves what we have so often heard asserted by travellers returned
from these regions, that the people do not want, and do not wish for,
the American missionaries, and would far rather be without them. Also
that wherever these Protestant apostles are located, their presence is
a continual source of trouble and annoyance, by causing quarrels among
the people, and that their sojourn in the land is most certainly not
conducive either to the glory of God on high, or of peace on earth to
men of good will. That their so-called mission has been a most
complete religious _fiasco_, is pretty well proved by the returns
which at page 308 we copy from these reports. If the reader will but
turn back to it, he will find that with twenty-four missionaries and
thirty-seven native assistants, the number of "church members" in the
Syrian "field" amounts to no more than two hundred, and this after the
Americans have worked as missionaries in this "field" for the last
quarter of a century or more. Surely no clearer proof than this is
wanting for endorsing what Mr. Urquhart has said above respecting the
way and the reason why these religious undertakings are puffed up, and
"plausible grounds" given for expecting that the consummation of
"gospel" triumph is at hand.
There is, perhaps, no Christian population in the world more united as
a body, more attached to their clergy, more faithful in their holding
to the See of Peter, or more orthodox in every particle of their
faith, than the Maronites of Mount Lebanon. To illustrate, even in the
most superficial manner, the history and ritual of this singular
people would extend this paper far beyond our limits. Suffice it to
say that upward of ONE THOUSAND years before the discovery of America,
the holy sacrifice of the mass was offered up in their churches, and
matins, lauds, vespers, and complins sung every morning and evening in
their sanctuaries, just as at the present day. Their name is derived
from that of St. Maroun, a holy hermit, who, in the fourth century,
when the heresies of Eutyches and the errors of Monothelism were so
common throughout the East, preserved the inhabitants of Lebanon and
the adjacent parts from those influences. "The Maronites," says Mgr.
Patterson, in his work, which is the third on our list at the head of
this paper,--
"The Maronites maintain that they have never swerved from the
Catholic faith, and love to assert that their Patriarch is the only
one whose spiritual lineage from St. Peter, in the see of Antioch,
has been unbroken by the taint of heresy or schism." (P. 389.)
Their secular clergy number about 1,200, and the regulars, inhabiting
sixty-seven monasteries, comprise some 1,400 monks, priests, and lay
brothers. They have besides fifteen convents, in which there are about
300 nuns.
{348}
"The blessings of education (continues the same author) are widely
diffused among the Maronites. Almost all are able to read and write;
and though few even of the clergy can be called learned, they are
all sufficiently instructed in the most necessary things, and
especially in the practical knowledge of their faith. Offences are
rare among them, crimes almost unknown. The number of the Maronites
of Lebanon appears to be about 250,000. In 1180, William of Tyre
estimated them at more than 40,000; in 1784 Volney placed them at
115,000; and Perrier, in 1840, at 220,000. Elsewhere they are hardly
to be found; the largest number I know of is at Cyprus, where there
are about 1,500. A few also are found at Aleppo and Damascus, and
some at Cyprus.
* * * * *
"There are (among the Maronites of Lebanon) four principal colleges
for the education of the clergy. The most ancient is that of Ain
Warka, in which between thirty and forty pupils are educated. They
are taught Arabic (their vernacular), Syriac, which is the
liturgical language of this rite; logic, moral theology, Italian,
and Latin. Six exhibitions for the maintenance of as many scholars
at the College of Propaganda were attached to this college. At the
time of the first French occupation of Rome, the funds which
provided for them were seized, and have never been restored; but the
pupils still go to Rome, and many of them are to be met with in the
higher ranks of the Maronite clergy." (P. 388.)
It is then to turn this people, and these priests, from the faith
which they have so long and so honestly held, and from the spiritual
paths in which they have walked for at least fifteen hundred years,
that respectable black-coated American gentlemen, whose experience of
life has been confined to Boston or New York, are sent over and
maintained by the funds furnished by the zealous evangelicals of
England and the United States. No wonder if those to whom they come
would rather be without them. With the people whom they are sent to
"convert" they have not a single idea in common. The very vernacular
of the country has to be studied and learnt by them (an undertaking of
at least two or three years, as Arabic is perhaps the most difficult
language in the world for an adult to acquire a proficiency in),
before they can preach or even converse with those whom they wish to
teach what they themselves deem, the truths of eternal life. Without
the most remote approach to a thing like a ritual, and without even
the barest liturgy to recommend them, they come among a people who
from very very infancy are perhaps more familiar with the meaning and
teaching of earnest ritualism than any nation on earth. Mr. Urquhart,
in the quotation we have given elsewhere, says of the American
missionaries, that "as to converting the Turks, they might just as
well try to convert the Archbishop of Canterbury;" might he not have
said the same as to the converting of the Maronites? From the 200
"church members," which the returns of the Turkish Missions-Aid
Society state as the result of the "missionary" labor on the Syrian
"field" during the quarter of a century and more which the work has
been going on, if we deduct the personal servants of the twenty-four
missionaries, and of thirty-seven native assistants, how many will
then be left as real, true, and earnest converts from their own faith
to that which the American missionaries would teach them? "It has to
be observed," says Mr. Urquhart, "that the proselytism carried on is
not, as is supposed in Europe, against unbelievers, but between
Christians;" [Footnote 105] and surely here is proselytism of the
kind forced upon a people against their will, by the inhabitants of
another far-off country, who would do very much better if they spent
their yearly £25,000 among themselves, in "converting" the thousands
of worse than pagans to be seen daily in the streets of every great
town of England and America, and whose "faith" is from time to time
shown in their "works."
[Footnote 105: The Lebanon, vol ii. p.79.]
We have no desire to hold up to the ridicule they deserve the absurd
canting sentences and so-called scriptural ejaculations with which the
of the Turkish Missions-Aid Society is interlarded. All who have
perused similar documents must be well acquainted with the way in
which {349} verses from Holy Writ are made to serve _£. s. d._ by the
writer. Nor do we wish to make our readers laugh I reproduce some of
the "pious" anecdotes which are to be met with in these pages. Thus it
may, or may not, be true that at Nicomedia "a few years ago all was
darkness and bigotry;" but it can hardly be taken what the French
would call "_au sérieux_" that two Armenian priests in this locality
were "awakened" by reading an Armeno-Turkish translation of The
Dairyman's Daughter, and that, since the conversion of these
gentlemen, a flourishing church, with a large congregation, has been
gathered together, and a home mission formed to carry the Gospel to
the towns and villages around. [Footnote 106] Also, from a personal
knowledge of the facts, we permit ourselves to doubt whether the
so-called "missionary" work in Constantinople has been, to say the
least of it, judiciously carried on; and whether, about two years ago,
the zeal without knowledge on the part of the missionaries did not
very nearly cause a rising of the whole Mahometan population, and a
general massacre of all the Christian population in that city. Nor--on
the testimony of Anglicans, Presbyterians, and other Protestants--can
we subscribe to the eulogium sung in praise of "the excellent Bishop
Gobat." We have far more serious matters to deal with as regards the
American missions in Syria and the East, and of which, if they are in
the least degree consistent, Protestants more than Catholics whom it
really does does not concern, would do well to take heed.
[Footnote 106: See Tenth Annual Report of the Turkish Missions-Aid
Society. p. 10.]
In the appendix to his "Tour," Mgr. Patterson has, with a fairness and
impartiality of judgment which cannot the too highly praised,
investigated the question as to what it is that the native Protestants
in the East really believe with the process of their so-called
"conversion" is complete. And it may not be out of place here to that
mention that the present writer, who has lately returned from a
residence of nearly ten years in those countries, entirely and to the
letter agrees with what this author has stated. Were it allowable to
mention names, he could also adduce the authority of many Englishmen
who have resided in Smyrna, Constantinople, Beyrout, Damascus, the
Lebanon, and other parts of the East, all of them Protestants, most of
them attending every Sunday the English ministrations of the American
missionaries, and some of them even communicants in their churches.
The evidence of these is varied in different points, but, as a whole,
certain pages of Dr. Patterson's appendix might serve as a precis of
the various opinions which these gentlemen have spoken, and which the
writer himself has formed during his prolonged residence in the East.
Be it, however, noted, that the objections here raised are not against
the American missionaries themselves, but against the result of their
labors, as well as against those of other Protestant missionaries--
wherever throughout these lands their labors have produced any fruit
whatever in the shape of "converts."
"Most true it is," says Mgr. Patterson, "that though large sums are
expended yearly by Protestants for their missions, the result is
nevertheless small indeed; but yet a great work is being done (I
sincerely think unintentionally) by those establishments. _The faith
of hundreds and thousands in their own religion is being shaken,
without any other faith being substituted for it_. [Footnote 107]
The missionaries' reports are full of expressions to the effect that
many persons come to them, declaring their readiness to hear what
they had to say, and their disbelief of their own national or common
faith; and yet the 'converts' registered by themselves may be told
in units, or at most by tens. Accordingly, I never came in contact
with 'liberals' in politics or religion, whether Jew, Christian, or
Gentile, who did not commence the conversation (on the supposition
that I was a Protestant) by declaring their disbelief of this or
that current dogma of their faith; and in all such cases I found I
was expected, at a _Protestant_ to applaud {350} and admire their
lamentable condition of mind. I repeat, most emphatically, that I
never saw a single person of this description who had one doctrine
to _affirm_. The work of the Protestant missions is simply
descriptive. In Turkey it is detaching Mohammedan subjects from
their allegiance to their spiritual and temporal head; in Greece it
is introducing the mind of youth to the conceit of private judgment;
in Egypt it does the same for the Copts; and in Mesopotamia for the
Nestorians. The missionaries report that, among the Jews, they
prefer to have to do with the rationalists rather than with the
Talmudists; and acting on that principle everywhere, they first make
a _tabula rasa_ of minds, on which they never afterward succeed in
inscribing the laws of sincere faith or consistent practice." (P.
456.)
[Footnote 107: The italics an our own, and we give them to mark the
pith of the whole question, with which nearly all Protestants, as
well as every Catholic we have met, that have inhabited Syria,
Palestine, or the Holy Land for any time, most fully concur.]
Here, then, we have, in a few words, an account of what the teachings
of the Protestant missionaries in the East result in. They take away
the faith that is in these people, and give them nothing in return.
[Footnote 108] In other and plainer words, the end of all this
teaching, and preaching, and denouncing of "popish" doctrines, is
simple unbelief or infidelity, embellished with Scriptural verses and
the current cant of the evangelical school. Do the subscribers to the
Turkish Missions-Aid Society contemplate this as one of the results of
their liberal donations? Is _this_ what the society put forth so
boldly as the "Gospel in Turkey?" Is it for such a change that the
traditions mounting to within less than four hundred years of our
Lord's sojourn on earth, preserved as they are by a people living in
the land which he inhabited, are to be cast off? Surely, even from the
most enthusiastic of the evangelical school, these questions can have
but one answer. [Footnote 109]
[Footnote 108: An English official who had resided upward of
twenty-five years in Syria, and who is a very earnest Protestant,
told the present writer exactly the same. "The American
missionaries," he said, "destroy the faith these native Christians
had, but give them no other in return. The consequence is, that they
invariably become more rationalists."]
[Footnote 109: About four years ago, a party of English travelers
were journeying over Mount Lebanon. While halting at a roadside
"khan," they were accosted by a native who spoke English very well.
They asked him who he was, and where he had learnt their language.
He said he was, or had been, servant to one of the American
missionaries, naming the gentleman, and that he was "a good
Protestant." One of the ladies present put a few questions to him,
and among others, asked him what he now believed of the Virgin Mary?
"_That_ for the Virgin Mary," said the miscreant, spitting at the
same time, and using an Arabic gesture indicating the utmost
contempt. The lady--an Anglican, not a Catholic--of course dropped
the conversation, feeling too disgusted to continue it. Some days
afterward she related that anecdote to the wife of an American
missionary; but the latter was not at all shocked, merely making the
remark. "I guess the the man had got rid of his old superstitions."
Is this what they call evangelizing the native Christians?]
And let not the subject be either misunderstood or blinked. Take any
dozen Englishmen really conversant with the ways of the country and
the ideas of the inhabitants; let them all the Protestants, and even
be of those who, finding no other Protestant ministration, attend the
chapels of the American missionaries. Of the twelve, certainly nine
will tell you that, although well-meaning and honest made in their
way, the preaching of the Protestant missionaries in the East holes
down but never builds up belief, and that in sober truth the native
Protestant "converts" are but so many free-thinkers--theoretical
Christians, but practical infidels. There is, with respect to this
part of our subject, one more extract from Mgr. Patterson's book,
[Footnote 110] which, although somewhat lengthy, we find so much to
the purpose, with respect to some of the questions of the day, that we
copy it entire:--
[Footnote 110: No one interested in the present spiritual state of
the East should be without this volume, and every traveller to
Palestine--Catholic or Protestant--should take it with him.]
"The Protestant sects of the West (says our author) are represented
in the East by missions of several denominations; but since they all
represent but one principle, namely the denegation of spiritual
authority as the basis of belief, it is unnecessary to to
distinguish them here. At first sight it might appear that the
Episcopalians, or representatives of the Anglican establishment,
should command a distinct notice, since they have one point (that of
episcopal superintendence) in common with the Eastern sects; but
when is considered, not merely that the fact of their having real
bishops is denied by all sects of the East, [Footnote 111] as well
as by the Catholic Church, {351} but that they themselves entirely
repudiate any claims which might be founded on their supposed
possession of an apostolic commission and authority through the
episcopate; and when, moreover, it is remembered that a few persons
who think differently on these points are wholly unrepresented in
the East, it seems evident that the distinction would be unreal.
Further, the Protestant missions in the East are mainly supplied by
ministers in the communion of the Establishment in England, but
often not episcopally appointed or ordained, and in all cases a
perfect the equality is admitted between such as are so appointed
and those who are not. Hence the Anglo-Lutheran 'Episcopalians,' the
independents, the American Congregationalists, etc., act in unison,
and on one principle. They teach that the belief they advocate in
certain doctrines is to be acquired by each individual through a
perusal of certain writings, and must be held by him as the result
of convictions proceeding from his own investigation of those
writings, which they assert to be the inspired word of God. This
procedure they call 'the right of private judgment.'
[Footnote 111: This, be it remembered, was written in 1852, ten
years before the recent attempt at union on the part of certain
Anglicans with the Greek Church. What Mgr. Patterson says is the
simple truth, and is confirmed by numerous conversations which the
present writer had, during a ten years' residence with several
patriarchs and numerous bishops, priests, and deacons of the
Greek, Armenian, Nestorian, Copt, and Jacobite sects. All these
clergy hate the very name of Rome, but they acknowledge she has
real bishops and a real priesthood; while one and all deny that
the Anglican Church as neither. The English Book of Common Prayer,
translated into Arabic, is very often met with throughout the
East, but it does not appear to have impressed the Oriental
Churches, whether in communion with the See of Peter or not, very
favorably respecting the Established Church of this country. The
Thirty-nine Articles they regard with especial horror, as showing
the church to be heretical at core. Nor have the members of the
Anglican Church and Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem done much to
remove this impression, but rather the contrary.]
"But the very terms of the Protestant principle, thus represented,
involve, not merely a disregard of existing authorities, but also of
that which presents that system for the acceptance of Eastern
Christians. Those, however, who advocate its claims are not usually
to be bound by the laws of consistency in logic. Though they will
have every man to read the Sacred Scriptures (that is, _their_
version of them) and to judge for himself, they have also a few
doctrines, built on them, as they suppose, to which they attach an
importance equal to that ascribed by Catholics to the dogmas of
faith. Of these, the chief is what they term 'justification by faith
only' the doctrine which teaches that man is accounted (but not
made) fit for eternal life in the divine presence, by a _subjective_
act or sentiment of the mind, called by them 'faith.' This 'faith'
is not the 'faith' of theological writers, but a persuasion, or
enthusiastic feeling, on the part of the individual, that he is
saved from eternal death by sacrifice of the cross. Laying such
stress as this view does on a persuasion, or feeling of the mind, it
might be expected that other acts of the mind would be regarded by
those teachers as of cognate importance. With singular
inconsistency, however, they regard all such acts, whether of love,
hope, or fear, or the like, as not only unimportant or indifferent,
but even sinful in fact or tendency. The one operation of the soul
to which they attach salvation is that of persuasion that itself is
saved. To account for so arbitrary a distinction, they allege that
this persuasion is not a natural gift, but a divine grace--or,
rather, the divine grace; for in it are contained, and from it flow,
all those good results which Catholic writers call 'graces;' such as
humility, charity, hope, etc. This extraordinary and almost
inexplicable doctrine, they consider not only conveyed in Holy
Scripture, but the whole sum and substance of its teachings; and
they allege portions of the epistles of St. Paul, in which he
declares that man is not justified by works, done irrespectively of
the divine sacrifice of the cross, to prove that all works or acts
of the mind (saving always the one act of persuasion, which they
call 'faith') are valueless and ineffectual to work out salvation.
The teachers of this view among us are often pious persons, who act
morally from natural good feelings; but the Eastern mind is too
consistent and too voluptuous to imitate them. If it is possible,
they say, to attain salvation by means of a sentiment so pleasant,
we regard it as quite unnecessary to add to it supererogatory
performances disagreeable to our inclinations." (P. 453.)
Here, in sober fact, and if we will only give things their right
names, is one of the chief reasons of such "conversions" as take place
in the East to Protestantism. An oriental mind is difficult to fathom
at once; but take any of the professed Protestants in Syria or other
parts of Turkey, clear away all the rubbish they have learnt to talk
in imitation of their new teachers--separate if you can (and it is
merely a matter of time and patience) all the prating about "the Lord
Jesus," and "the blessed Scriptures," the "teaching of the Spirit,"
and suchlike spiritual mouthings, from what are the actual thoughts of
the individual and the real reasons for his change, and you will
invariably find at the bottom of his mind the all-prevailing idea,
that of what use are confession, penance, private prayer, fasting,
giving alms, and other good works, when salvation can be accomplished
by the far more easy and pleasant process of a mere sentiment of the
mind, which any man can train his understanding into believing when he
wishes to do so. And these, be it understood, are the best of the
converts. As Mgr. Patterson says of them:--
{352}
"Such persons as I am alluding to have really embraced the principle
on which Protestantism rests. They have thrown off the authority of
their own belief, not to accept the formula of another, but to reject
all authority. They are like the German 'philosophic' Protestants, or
the French universitaries of the West--their conduct is often
irreproachable, but their belief is a blank, and their principles
distinctly Antinomian, even when they themselves do not put them in
practice. I maintain that to one class or other of these all the
proselytes made to Protestanism in the East belong. They are either
worthless persons, who are happy to substitute an easy-simulated
sentiment for whatever amount of discipline their communion imposed,
or they are 'philosophers,' sceptics, and infidels. The reports of
these allegations, and the existing state of religious and political
parties in the East, give scope for these results." (P. 453.)
There are, however, two other reasons, which also act powerfully upon
such natives of the East as come under the influence of Protestant
missionary teaching, and of which when they have abandoned their own
creed, they take especial pride in the possession. The one is the
notion which they imbibe from certain misquotations of Holy Writ, as
well as from ill-judged (even looking at it from a Protestant point of
view) teaching on the part of their new pastors; namely, that every
man is "a priest unto God," and that once a Protestant and a
"church-member," they are as high in spiritual rank, and far superior
in "saving faith" to those whom they formerly regarded and respected
as their clergy. The idea is, of course, utterly false, and childish
in the extreme, to our views. But the native mind can only be judged
by its own standards of worth, and the fact remains as we have said.
That the Protestant missionaries would knowingly foster such notions
it would be uncharitable to believe; but that such is another result
of their teaching there can be no doubt whatever. The missionaries
themselves, however, see very little indeed of their congregations,
small as they are, save at prayer-meetings and preachings once or
twice in that week. It is a curious fact, but one which has struck
many even of those who have not yet found courage to knock and ask for
admittance into the Catholic Church, that in proportion has a sect, or
people, or nation, stray far from unity of the one true fold, so to
their pastors and teachers neglect and despise that visiting and
looking after their flocks, which forms with us such a prominent part
of every parish priest's or missionary's duty. The High-Church
Anglican Protestant clergymen--although still very far short of what
is done by our clergy--come next to the Catholic priest in this work;
and as we descend the scale of Protestantism, we find the practice
more and more rare, until I the Socinians such acts of supererogation
on the part of their preachers are never heard of. With Protestant
missionaries in the East the practice is exceedingly rare: perhaps it
is regarded as an infringement upon true religious liberty?
The third reason which has often--very generally, if not
always--influence in making the native of Syria, Palestine, or other
Eastern lands embrace Protestantism, is that when he has done so, the
fact of his being a proselyte puts him indirectly under the
"protection" of the English or American consul, if such an official
there is--and there generally is one--within even a couple of days'
journey from the convert's place of abode. Not that the individual is
at once put on the rolls of the English or American subjects. Such was
some years ago the practice; but now for very shame's sake this has
been altered. But, as the English consuls-general, consuls, and
vice-consuls have a sort of standing order to "protect" all
Protestants against the tyranny or ill-usage of the local authorities;
and as every native Protestant has nearly always some grievance which
he makes out to be an injustice committed on him _because he is_ a
Protestant, so his complaint invariably finds its way to the English
consulate, and either the chief of the office or one of his native
dragomen deems it imperative upon him to interfere, if not officially,
at any rate officiously, with the pasha or other authority of the
place. {353} As a matter of course the complaint is listened to,
and--justice or not justice--the "protected" of the consul gets what
he calls justice, but which his opponent often deems the very reverse.
For, be it remarked, that, as a general rule in the East, "justice"
means obtaining what you want, not what is yours by law or equity.
Your complaint, and what in Europe we call justice, _may_ be on the
same side. If so, all the better; but if not, you will term your view
of the affair "justice" all the same; and, if you don't get what you
want, you are unjustly treated. This sort of administration is but too
often ruled by the consuls, and the "converts" know full well how to
make use of it. No one who has not lived in the Turkish dominions can
imagine the power which an European consul or vice-consul has in those
countries. Mr. Urquhart has done good service in exposing this evil,
which is, in point of fact, one of the chief reasons why the Ottoman
Empire has been gradually but surely verging toward ruin since the
foreign consular power became virtually far greater than that of the
local authority. Of this interference of one country in the affairs of
another, Mr. Urquhart says, it presents "a terrible prospect for the
human race; for it involves the extinction of each people, and the
absorption ultimately of the whole in some one government more
dexterous than the rest." All the chief governments of Europe have
been more or less guilty of this meddling with the executive of
Turkey, but notably England, France, and Russia, in whose hands every
local pasha is a plaything, to be tossed here and there at will.
England says--or, rather, each English consul says for her--that he
most interfere, else French influence would be too powerful in the
province or district. France returns the compliment, and declares that
England--that is, the English consul--is such a deep diplomat that,
unless she uses her influence, England would be paramount in the
place. Russia, on the other hand, declares that she must maintain her
_prestige_, else the Turks would say of their old enemy that she had
fallen in the scale of nations. This interference in the
administration of the Ottoman empire is thus described by Mr.
Urquhart:
"In other countries it has been known as diplomatic representations
made in regard to principles; here (that is, in Turkey) it is
administrative. It bears upon the taxes, the customs, the limitation
of districts, the administrative functions, the parish business, the
selection and displacement of functionaries, the operations of the
courts of law--whatever is included under the word 'government'
belongs here to 'interference.' This operation is exercised with
authority, without control, without responsibility. The discussions
in reference thereto are carried on between the functionaries of a
foreign government; and as that foreign government can enter upon
the field only by an act of usurpation, its position is that of an
enemy. Every act is directed to subvert and to disturb; the object
of each individual is of necessity to supersede the legitimate
authority of the native functionary with whom he is in contact.
"Thus it is that the administrative interference, which has in Syria
replaced the diplomatic, is carried on through consuls." (Vol ii.
pp. 349, 360.)
Hitherto this work of "interference" has been carried on by our
English consuls in Syria in very much the same way as it has by their
Russian and French colleagues, no better, but no worse. At any rate,
in all matters of influencing religious affairs, directly or
indirectly, they have held perfectly aloof. But if we are to judge
from a document lately put forth by the Turkish Missions-Aid Society,
the title of which stands at the end of the list of books and
pamphlets that heads this paper, either an entire change has in this
respect come over our policy, or else several of our Anglo-Syrian
official must be acting in direct disobedience {354} of the wishes of
the Foreign office. We allude to an appeal for the building of "A
SYRIAN PROTESTANT COLLEGE," together with a prospectus of the same,
and a list of the "_Local Board of Managers_," among which, to their
shame be it said, appear the names of Mr. Geo. J. Eldridge, her
majesty's consul-general in Syria; Mr. W. H. Wrench, her majesty's
vice-consul at Beyrout; Mr. Noel Temple Moore, her majesty's consul at
Jerusalem; and Mr. E. T. Rogers, her majesty's consul at Damascus.
That there can be no real desire or want for such an institution in
the country, and that the very appeal for help to found it is about
the most outrageous piece of pious impudence that has ever been
published, even in the name of sectarian so-called religion, will
appear upon a further examination of this document. We will do the
American missionaries the justice of saying that no Englishman would,
or could, ever have had the _toupé_ to ask for money for such a
purpose; the whole document bears the unmistakable impress of "smart"
New-England. As we have shown before, from the "summary" of American
Missions Statement given elsewhere, copied from the report of the
Turkish Missions-Aid Society, the number of Protestant "church
members" on the Syrian field is two hundred; this, too, after nearly
thirty years of missionary "labor" in the country. And now these same
missionaries come forward and modestly tell us that "more than £20,000
have already been secured and invested in the United States" for the
building of this proposed "institution," and that "it is proposed to
raise an equal amount in England, the income annually going to the
support of the College." The president of the proposed college, and
_ex-officio_ president of the board of managers, is an American
missionary, the Reverend Dr. Bliss, and among the members of the board
are the names of some thirteen or fourteen other missionaries of all
sorts. The trustees, who "are to have the general supervision of the
institution," reside in New York, where we should imagine they will be
able, from their proximity to the college in Syria, to supervise the
whole affairs exceedingly well. With these, or with such persons as
have parted with their money for such a pious folly, we have nothing
to do. But as regards the English officials, it is another matter and
Protestants, as well as Catholics must agree that men holding the
positions they do in a country where religious discord is the bane and
curse of the land, have no business to mix themselves up with an
undertaking which is purely and wholly got up for the purpose of
proselytism. Had the subscription been to build a Protestant chapel or
church, or to endow any such establishment for the use of the English
residents in Syria, it would have been a very different matter. To
lend their names to any such undertaking these gentlemen would you a
perfect right; but to give their official sanction to a scheme which
is but a renewed campaign on the religion of the country, and as
English government officers to say that they--and consequently the
government they represent--approved as consul-general and consuls of a
wholesale sectarian converting shop, is nothing less than a
prostitution of the name of this country in Syria. The "dodge" is a
good one; the American missionaries, notwithstanding their "tall"
pious talk in missionary newspapers, have actually done nothing toward
perverting the native Christians of Syria. Two hundred "church
members" in nearly thirty years is at the rate of seven converts a
year less than the third of a convert every twelve months for each the
twenty-four missionaries. This pay. Even American subscribing
"Christians" will, after a time, cease to contribute for what brings
forth so little fruit. Something must be done; and therefore they have
started the idea of this "Syrian Protestant college," having got the
promises of these {355} consular gentlemen to countenance it as they
have done.
Did these proselytizing consuls, before they allowed their names to be
made use of in this prospectus, read the third paragraph of the
document, in which we are coolly told that "THE ENEMIES OF
CHRISTIANITY, PROFESSED INFIDELS AS WELL AS PAPISTS, FULLY ALIVE TO
THE ADVANTAGES TO BE GAINED FROM THE PRESENT STATE OF THE COUNTRY, ARE
ADOPTING BOLD AND ENERGETIC MEASURES TO FORESTALL PROTESTANTISM IN
BECOMING THE EDUCATORS OF THIS VAST POPULATION"?
Or, if they _did_ read it, did it not strike them that there was an
insolence, as well as an amount of sickening cant and implied
falsehood, throughout these words which ought to have prevented them,
as _English gentlemen,_ to say nothing of their official character,
from countenancing such a concern? Have English consuls in Eastern
lands so far lost whatever teaching they may have had as to forget
that, taking all her majesty's subjects throughout the world, the
"Papists" are very nearly as numerous as the Protestants; and that to
class them "infidels," and call them "the enemies of Christianity," is
an insult--to say nothing of the loud vulgarity and the utter untruth
of the assertion, which there can be no excuse for any English
gentleman, far less any English official, to lend his name to? In
this, every person with the slightest pretension to the name of
gentleman or an educated man, no matter what may be his religious
persuasion, must agree with us. And to talk of "Syrian Protestantism,"
with its two hundred "church members" amidst a population of half a
million native Christians, and three times that number of Moslems,
being "forestalled" in "becoming the educators of this vast
population," is much as if the Mormons in London were to complain that
the English Church was "forestalling" them in being the educators of
the capital of England. The Latter-day Saints of the metropolis bear a
much larger and not at all less respectable proportion to the rest of
the population of London, than the Protestant "converts" of Syria do
to the rest of their fellow-countrymen.
Three excuses may be put forth in defence of these consular gentlemen
who have thus disgraced the country they serve. It may be
asserted--1st, That if French, Russian, and Austrian consuls give
official protection to Catholic and Greek religious establishments, it
is quite lawful for English authorities to do the same to Protestant
undertakings. 2dly, That "the Syrian Protestant college" is to be got
up for literature, the sciences, jurisprudence, and medicine, and not
for religious purposes. And, 3dly, That they have allowed their names
to be made use of without reading over the prospectus. Of these the
third and last excuse is the only one that will hold water for an
instant; and for their sakes we hope it may be true, poor and lame as
such a plea would be for official men. As regards the first of these
pleas, which we have put into the mouths of the defendants, it is
quite true that the French, Russian, and Austrian consuls have and do
afford official protection to Catholic and Greek religious
establishments, but the cases are by no means parallel.
To quote again the words of Mr. Urquhart:--"The Roman Catholic regular
and secular clergy are established here (in Syria) as in any other
Roman Catholic countries; [Footnote 112] that is to say, they are
pastors of flocks, and not missionaries. The Protestants have no
flocks, and they are sent with a view of creating them."
[Footnote 112: The same may be said of the Greek clergy, who have
many and very large congregations--in the country--in some parts
much more numerous than the Maronites or other Catholic churches.]
We wonder what this writer would have said could he have seen a
"Syrian Protestant college" proposed as a means toward this
much-desired end, or could he have foreseen that four {356} English
consuls could ever have went their names--officially, too--to such a
combination of Little Bethel and "smart" American doings. Nor will it
suffice to say that this institution is not being got on foot for the
express purpose of proselytism, more or less direct. In paragraph
number eight we are told that--
"The college will be conducted on strictly protestant and
evangelical principles."
What _that_ means, we all know; also--
"It will be open for students from any of the Oriental sects or
nationalities who will conform to its laws and regulations."
That is to say, any student belonging to the Latin, [Footnote 113]
Maronite, Greek Schismatical, Greek Catholic, Armenian Catholic,
Armenian Schismatical, or other Eastern church, will be admitted to
this college, provided he attends "Protestant" and "evangelical"
preachings and prayers, and is humble-minded enough to hear the faith
of his fathers denounced every day as one line of "the enemies
Christianity," and "Papists" lovingly asked with "professed infidels."
And in the very next sentence we are further informed that--
[Footnote 113: In the East, European Catholics, and all others who
use the European or Roman Ritual, are called "Latins;" while the other
Oriental churches in communion with the See of Peter are
distinguished by their respective names--Maronites, Greek
Catholics, Armenian Catholics, Syrian Catholics, Chaldeans, and
others. The whole are termed "Catholics," and there is nothing of
which they are so proud as their intercourse with Rome and the
centre of unity. Of the various schismatical and heretical sects,
there is not one that assumes the name of "Catholic" except
certain of the "advanced" school English Established Church.]
"It is hoped that a strong Christian influence will always centre in
and go forth from this institution; and that it will be instrumental
in raising up a body of men who will fill the ranks of a
well-trained and vigorous 'native ministry;' become the authors of a
native Christian literature; supply the educational wants of the
land; encourage its industrial interests; develop its resources;
occupy stations of authority, and in a large degree aid in carrying
the Gospel and its attendant blessings wherever the Arabic language
is spoken."
With the help of one English consul-general, two English consuls, and
one English vice-consul, this may be in a certain measure be done:
yes, and _will_ be done; for consular influence in those lands is all
powerful. But without it, no: without this English state-help the
"Syrian Protestant college" will wither, and only bear fruit in such
proportion as have done the "Protectant churches" in Syria, with their
twenty-four missionaries, their thirty-seven native assistants, and
their two hundred communicants, after nearly thirty years labor in the
Syrian "field."
After the extracts we have given from the prospectus, can there be any
doubt as to the proselytizing intentions of this
American-Syrian-Protestant-evangelical institution? or can there be
two opinions as to the propriety of English gentlemen and English
officials degrading themselves and their office by becoming connected
with such an undertaking? We observe, by the way, as a curious
coincidence in the prospectus, that the name of the New-York Treasurer
to the board of trustees of this proposed college is William E. Dodge;
and that the Rev. D. Stuart Dodge, of New York, has been appointed one
of the professors. Would it not have been better and more appropriate
if her majesty's consuls at Beyrout, Damascus, and Jerusalem had left
all this evangelical speculation to men of like name and calling? It
is true that when the prospectus was drawn out, and these English
officials allowed their name to be made use of, Lord Palmerston was
prime minister, and Lord Russell ruled over the foreign office. That
the Shaftesbury power with the first, and the well-known tendencies of
the author of the Durham letter, may have had some influence with
these individuals in their official character is possible, nay,
probable; but should gentlemen, English gentlemen, ever have allowed
their names to go forth as patrons and directors of this unholy
humbug? A private individual may lend his influence to whatever scheme
he likes to patronize; but a public servant and above all an English
public servant in Turkey--has no right whatever to be so liberal with
his patronage.
{357}
One word more ere we have done with the "Syrian Protestant college."
At the head of the list of subscribers to this proposed institution is
£1,000 from "The late Syrian asylums' committee." If we are rightly
informed, that money was subscribed from the residue of a fund which
was instituted in 1860 to afford assistance to the sufferers from the
Syrian massacres. To this fund Catholics, Protestants, Greeks, and
Jews subscribed, with the express stipulation and understanding that
no part or portion of it was to be used for any religious purpose
whatever. The fact was, that the chief managers of the fund in Syria
were American missionaries, and subscribers to it were afraid that the
money would be used for proselytizing purposes. After a time the great
misery of the Syrian Christians came to an end, and no further relief
was required: but there still remained an unused balance of about
£1,200 of this fund in the banker's hands. If what is reported in
London be correct--and we have very good reason for believing it to be
so--who was it that gave authority for this £1,000 to be given as a
donation to the Syrian Protestant college? To question regards not
only the Catholics, Greeks, and Jews of London, Manchester, Liverpool,
and other towns in England that subscribed to this fund, but also
those belonging to a large--and we are thankful to say a very
large--class of our Protestant fellow-countrymen, who, however much
they may differ from us in matters of faith, are enemies to religion
being made a cloak for fraud, and are honest and honorable in their
dealings between man and man. If this £1,000 which heads the list of
subscriptions in the Syrian Protestant college was really given from
the money which in 1860-61 was gathered together as "the Syrian relief
fund," a gross and most infamous breach of trust has been committed,
and all men should beware how they in future contribute to anything in
which the American Oriental missionaries have any influence.
But where have the projectors of this college learned geography? They
tell us that the establishment will be "LOCATED IN BEYROUT, the
seaport of Syria, a city rapidly growing in size and importance, and
OCCUPYING A CENTRAL POSITION IN RESPECT TO ALL THE ARABIC-SPEAKING
RACES."
The capitals are our own, for we would note these words as bringing a
new light in geographical discovery. That Beyrout is by far the most
pleasant, nay the only pleasant, town in Syria to reside in--that
there is more society, and particularly what the promoters of this
undertaking would call more "Christian" society, we fully admit. That,
on account of its proximity to the sea, it is far more healthy than
most towns in Syria, and that from the number of its European and
native Christian inhabitants it is far safer to reside in, and much
more exempt from the chance of any Moslem outbreak taking place,
cannot be denied. But that it occupies "a central position in respect
to all the Arabic-speaking races," is simply, and very grossly untrue,
as a glance at any school-boy's atlas would show. It would be about as
correct to assert that Plymouth or Falmouth held "a central position
in respect to" the rest of England. If the promoters of "The Syrian
Protestant college" are so very anxious to diffuse the great blessings
of their faith and literature "wherever the Arabic language is
spoken," would not Damascus, Mosul, Aleppo, Antioch, or even Bagdad,
be more central than Beyrout? To reside in any of these places would
not be so pleasant, but it would be more missionary-like, and would
certainly save the money of the subscribers, Beyrout being by far the
most expensive town in all Syria to live in.
But men of American sectarian preacher stamp never knew and never will
know what a missionary spirit is. It is foreign to their habits as
well as to their creed. When we hear of {358} American Protestant
missionaries going forth with barely a change of clothes; when we
learn that they abandon father, mother, family, house and home to
preach the Gospel; when we read of half a score of them undergoing
martyrdom, as did two Catholic bishops and eight priests in Corea, an
account of which was published in the Times of the 27th August
last--when, in fine, we hear of their taking lessons in their work
from the Jesuits, the Lazarists, the Capuchins, the Dominicans, or any
other of those religious orders which have shed such lustre upon the
church in all ages--it may then become a matter of discussion whether,
notwithstanding their gross errors in faith, they have not something
of the missionary spirit among them. At present we can only look upon
them as do all the Moslems, the native Christians, the Jews, and
nineteen-twentieths of the European population in the East, namely,
that they drive a very flourishing trade, and enjoy very comfortable
incomes: but that the work they are paid for doing has neither the
self-denial of man nor the blessing of God to make it prosper.
Protestant missions throughout the world have ever been, are, and ever
will be, most miserable failures. Dr. Littledale was, at any rate,
candid when he spoke of "the pitiful history of Anglican missions to
the heathen;" but he might with equal truth make mention of the
wretched results of Protestant missions throughout the world. That
unison of mawkish sentiment and Biblical phrases selected at random,
which commonly goes by the name of "cant," may certainly influence
weak-minded persons to subscribe to visionary schemes of a Protestant
conversion of Oriental Christians. But exposure must come sooner or
later, and with it the beginning of the end of subscriptions. Some
years ago the American missionaries gave up the "field" they occupied
at Jerusalem; would it not be as well if they conferred a similar boon
on the Syrian and Lebanon districts? The churches against which they
are chiefly engaged in preaching have their own bishops, their own
clergy, and their own missionary preachers from Europe. These latter
are not engaged in perverting men from another quarter, but--at the
request, and with the full concurrence of the native bishops and
clergy--they build up and repair the breaches in the sheep-fold, and
help in driving away the wolves that would enter. There may be--there
are--sheep that go astray from time to time, but considering all
things--and particularly now that the sectarian influence of English
consuls in Syria has been brought to bear on the "work"--these are few
indeed. The Maronites and other sects in communion with St. Peter's
successor, form part and parcel of God's one only true and holy
Catholic Church, against which, we have His word, the gates of hell
shall never prevail. [Footnote 114]
[Footnote 114: The fact of four English consuls allowing their names
to go forth as patrons of a Protestant College, which is to be got
up for the perversion of native Christians, is so utterly at
variance with the general practice of our government, that we must
express our surprise it has been overlooked at the Foreign Office.
We cannot imagine Lord Stanley lending even a tacit sanction to such
an outrage of the feelings of the native Syrian Christians.]
In his work upon "Mount Lebanon," from which we have already quoted,
Mr. Urquhart relates a conversation which he had with a certain
Maronite bishop, which seems so _apropos_ that we give it entire:--
"I wish you to know [said the bishop] that we are not attached to
France. France is to us on oppression from which we would be most
happy to escape; we have proved this by acts, but no account is
taken of them. How France came to be considered our protector is an
old story, into which it is needless to enter. The connection
awakened against us the hatred of the Turks and of the Greeks, and
to it may be attributed the past suffering of our people from both.
Here and in the other parts of Syria, in Egypt and in Cyprus, from
the middle of the last century to the close of the campaign of
Napoleon, we reckon that the blood of 40,000 Maronites has been shed
by the Turks or the Greeks. This is the debt we owe to French
protection. When, in 1840, the French government sent to us to
require us to support Ibrahim Pasha and Emir Beshir, we gave a flat
refusal. {359} M. ---- came to Saida, and sent a message to the
Patriarch (of the house of Habesh), who sent his own secretary to
give him the answer, which had been decided on by the bishops and
chiefs, which was, 'The Maronites have heard much of, but have never
seen, the fruit of the protection of France, and could not, in the
hope of it, expose themselves to the risks they were now required to
run.' Then the English government sent to us an agent (Mr. Wood),
accompanied by M. Stendel, on the part of the Austrian government,
proposing to us to accept the protection of Austria in lieu of that
of France. We declined to make any application for such protection;
_and we complained to Mr. Wood of the interference in our religion
of the Protestant missionaries which made us look with suspicion on
the intentions toward us of the English government. He assured us
that the English government was opposed to all missionary schemes,
and suggested that we should draw up a petition to the Turkish
government, requesting the missionaries to be prohibited from
entering the country, promising that the English ambassador would
obtain from the Porte an order to that effect. Satisfied with these
assurances, we aided in the expulsion of Mehemet Ali, although he
had every way favored the Maronites._
_"The promised order respecting the missionaries never came, England
set up a Protestant bishop (in Jerusalem), and obtained from the Porte
the formal recognition of the Protestants as a body."_(Vol. ii pp.
261, 262.)
The italics in this quotation are our own. They show pretty plainly
whether or not the missionaries are welcome to the natives of Syria.
But what will these same natives say now, when they see our
consuls-general and consuls coming forth as the official patrons and
promoters of Protestant missionary proselytism? If it be true--and we
have certainly always looked upon it as one of the rules of our
government--that the English government "_is opposed to all missionary
schemes,_" how is it that the consul-general in Syria, the consul at
Jerusalem, and the consul at Damascus, are allowed to take upon
themselves the office of "managers" or "local directors" of the
Protestant Syrian college?
--------
ORIGINAL.
DELIA.
There is a darkness which is still not gloom,
And thou, poor child, whose young but sightless eyes
Catch no glad radiance from the summer skies--
Worse, still, neglected in thy blindness, whom
Those nurtured like thee in the self-same womb
Have cast on strangers, strangers truly wise,
Since more than waif of gold such charge they prize--
Hast found a joy what others find a doom.
Thou knowest the way unto the chapel door,
And, kneeling softly on its blessed floor.
Thou art no longer blind; the _Presence_ there
Reveals itself to thy adoring prayer;
Hours fly with thee that altar's Guest before,
Till, cowards, we envy what we would not share.
------
{360}
Original.
MADEMOISELLE DE MONTPENSIER.
How shall we tell in a few words the story of one whose career
extended over sixty-six years? Our heroine's name calls up a picture
of the most brilliant period in French history. A thousand images
arise of pageantry, of genuine magnificence, of jewelled and gilded
wretchedness. Life seemed like a great magic lantern exhibited for her
private amusement; scene after scene passed before her eyes with a
pomp unknown in these days of tinsel splendor; but most welcome of
all, ever returning, never palling, was the slide that presented to
her view La Grande Mademoiselle, the contemplated bride of half the
sovereigns in Europe.
Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans was born in the palace of the Louvre, May
29th, 1627. Fairies met her on the threshold of the world and endowed
her with all earthly goods--boundless wealth, a cheerful temper, keen
wit, excellent health, and a fair share of beauty. Was it a kindly or
a spiteful fairy who crowned these gifts with a vanity that nothing
could undermine or overthrow? This self-love afforded the only
unfailing enjoyment of her long life; but as it made her throw aside
as unworthy of her every scheme of happiness suited to her rank, and
carve out a destiny for herself in defiance of all authority, the
fairies must decide the question, not we.
"The misfortunes of my house," she says, "began soon after my birth,
for it was followed by the death of my mother, which greatly
diminished the good fortune that the rank I hold would have led me to
expect. The great wealth which my mother left, and of which I am sole
heiress, might well, in the opinion of most people have consoled me
for losing her. But to me, who feel now of what advantage her
superintendence of my education would have been to me, and her credit
in my establishment, added to her tenderness, it seems impossible
sufficiently to regret her death."
This passage from her "Mémoires" exhibits several of Mademoiselle's
peculiarities: a certain blunt, abrupt mode of expressing her exact
meaning, an egotism that makes her lose or gain a test of the
importance of events, and a right-minded honesty which saved her from
the worst errors of her time.
No unmarried daughter of France had ever enjoyed so magnificent an
establishment as was now accorded to the heiress of the house of
Montpensier. The Tuileries, where she lodged, being connected by a
gallery with the Louvre, the little motherless child was under the
supervision of Louis XIII. and Anne of Austria, as well as of Marie de
Medicis, who expended more tenderness upon this grand-daughter than
she had ever on her own children. Mademoiselle regarded her royal
grandmother with great partiality. She used to say when the Duchess of
Guise was quoted: "She is only a distant grandmother, she is not
queen."
Marie de Medicis left France in disgrace in 1633, followed by
Monsieur, whose career was a series of petty intrigues, from which he
invariably emerged unscathed, leaving his accomplices to bear the
consequences of their folly. Very different was the spirit of his
daughter. At six years old she was taken to see the degradation of Duc
d'Elbôeuf and Marquis de {361} la Vienville from the order. On being
told that their disgrace was owing to devotion to her father, she wept
bitterly, and wished to retire, saying that she could not with
propriety witness the ceremony. Ten years later Monsieur supped with
her, enlivened by the music of the twenty-four royal violins. She
writes: "He was as gay as if MM. de Cinq Mars and de Thou had not been
left behind on the road. I confess I could not look at him without
thinking of them, and amid my own joy the sight of his contentment
pained me." Is not a certain reverence due to this generous daughter
of a mean-spirited intriguer, and to one who, with untrammelled
liberty, remained virtuous in the court of Louis XIV.? That her
unspotted character was not the result of coldness, is proved by her
foolish devotion to Lauzun. If pride was her safeguard, at least some
human praise should be given to so high an estimate of royal
greatness.