SYRIA, HER INHABITANTS, AND THEIR RELIGIONS, CONTINUED.
The desire to benefit my countrymen by an influx of European emigrants
has tempted me to wander from the subject of the preceding chapter; to
forget the actual inhabitants for a moment, while painting the delights
of a residence in Syria to those who can only become so in future. I
must now proceed with my survey of the different races of people who
inhabit the country, and I shall endeavour to make this sketch of their
peculiarly national and religious characteristics as clear as possible.
There are few countries on the face of the earth so small in extent,
which comprise so many different races and religious persuasions, as
Syria. In point of fact, its present condition in this respect offers a
remarkable illustration of the numerous schisms, which took place in the
Greek Church during the earlier period of its existence, and which, it is
well-known, were carried on with greater perseverance and bitterness than
any similar disturbances, which have at various times afflicted other
churches.
So complete has been the separation of the sectarian bodies from the
present church—so great was the influence of the leading ecclesiastics
among them, that a religious difference has produced a variation in their
habits and manners, and has even given to people, descendants from the
same stock, and living in the same country, the appearance of a totally
different origin.
We also number among our inhabitants a large and influential population,
inhabiting a mountainous district, who believe, and their belief is not
without foundation, that they are of Chinese origin. In reviewing our
population, we find that it may be classed into four chief sections:
Christians, Jews, Mahommedans, and Infidels. The Christians we find
sub-divided into more than that number of sects; almost every sect
constituting a different people.
The Mahommedans are also sub-divided into two branches, the orthodox and
the heterodox, or as they are otherwise called Sûnnees and Sheeas, the
former who are the more numerous, acknowledge the Sultan as the head and
protector of their religion, and are noted for their love of tradition
and their many interpretations of the Koran. The Sheeas are nearly the
same in creed as the Methoûali, of whom I shall speak further in a future
chapter. The Jews stand alone and isolated, as they do all over the
world, though there is one of the infidel tribes which is now declared to
be of Jewish origin. Of each and all I shall speak in the proper place,
believing that I shall best succeed in rousing the interests of my
readers by presenting this picture of the inhabitants of Syria from a
religious point of view.
Of late years, as most of my readers must be aware, the attention of the
benevolent Christian public of Great Britain has been frequently and
anxiously directed to the want of proper religious teaching in Syria.
Englishmen, both poor and wealthy, have contributed from their purses to
supply the deficiency through the aid of English and native missionaries:
the latter having been educated in England expressly for this sacred
purpose.
The United States have not been behindhand in this general cause;
American missionaries have co-operated with some of their brethren from
this country zealously, and with good results. How far those results
have extended—how rapidly the elementary principles of the purest
Christianity have been spread abroad in the East, through the agency of
these godly men, to whose fervent zeal and untiring energy, I can, at
least bear the most satisfactory, though humble testimony, has been
better and more efficiently told in the annual reports, which the several
missionary societies issue to the public, than any description which I
could give.
I am truly grateful for the deep interest which these societies and their
supporters have taken in the religious welfare of my nation; but it would
not be becoming in me to attempt to add anything to their reports.
It will be sufficient for me to assure my readers, that the pious
gentlemen employed by the parent societies, have traversed Syria in all
directions, piercing even into the very heart of its most mountainous
districts, sowing broadcast the seeds of a pure and immaculate faith;
that they have found patient listeners in all, and zealous converts in
many of our towns and villages. The number of their converts continues
to increase; they are re-planting the true faith “The Cedar of Lebanon,”
which has flourished in the land from time immemorial, and they have
prepared the ground, nay, they have already laid the foundation on which
to raise an imperishable temple in honour of the only true Mediator, our
Saviour Christ, in defiance of the machinations and intrigues of the
“wild beast of Rome.”
They have my most fervent wishes for their complete success, and,
trusting to the aid of the Most High, I confidently look forward to that
day, when the offshoots of the stately Cedar of Lebanon shall have
covered the entire land, casting a holy shade over its inhabitants, when
the noxious weeds that now impede its growth and baffle its influence,
shall have disappeared from the land, and when the “wild beast” shall
have been banished to his den.
I desire, above all things, to remove an erroneous impression which I
find prevailing very generally in this country as to the character of the
Greek, or Orthodox Eastern Church, to which, by far the greater portion
of the Christian inhabitants belong. I have myself styled this Church
the “Thistle of Lebanon,” when comparing it with the healthier and purer
doctrines of the Reformed Church, which I have ventured to call the Cedar
of my beloved Lebanon; but, nevertheless, it would be most ungenerous,
nay unfair, to permit my readers to retain the impression that the Greek,
or the Orthodox Eastern Church, is an offshoot of the Church of Rome, or
in any way connected with it.
Nearly three hundred thousand of my countrymen worship God according to
its doctrines, and all of them, excepting, perhaps the most ignorant,
would feel indignant at the supposition that they were followers of the
Church of Rome.
I will not fatigue my readers with a learned disquisition on the forms of
worship, or on points of doctrine, for I shall effect my purpose much
easier by a simple statement of the cardinal differences between the two
churches, and I have no doubt they will at once be convinced, that there
is a greater degree of relationship between the English or any other
Reformed Church, and the Orthodox Eastern Church than there exists
between it and the Church of Rome.
Learned historians, and some of the most intelligent and enquiring of
Eastern travellers, have dwelt with much force on the early history of
the Orthodox Eastern Church, and there is no doubt in my own mind that
they have clearly established, not merely the fact of its not being an
offshoot of the Church of Rome, nor in any way intimately connected with
it; but, on the contrary, that since its establishment it has always been
a Protestant Church, and that it is therefore more ancient in its
Protestant character than either of the Reformed Churches.
Unfortunately for the character of the Orthodox Eastern Church, the
knowledge and experience of these intelligent men has been confined to a
very small circle of readers, and the greater part of the British public
has attached infinitely more credit to the imperfect and superficial
sketches of travellers, who resorting to our country for a short time,
and after “doing” Syria in a month, beguile the tedium of their journey
home by writing an account of their seeings and doings, concocting it in
as rapid and careless a manner as their examination into the condition of
the country was hasty and thoughtless.
It is upon the authority of such trustworthy writers, that I find the
impression prevailing, that the creed, the doctrines, and forms of
worship of the Orthodox Eastern Church are precisely similar to those of
the Church of Rome. When resident in Syria, I have, on more than one
occasion, attended church with English travellers, who, struck by the
presence of pictures, which decorate the walls of all our churches, and
by the similarity of the robes of the officiating priests to those worn
by the priests of the Romish Church, conceived that they were in a Roman
Catholic Church. It needed some explanation to remove this impression.
Most of the writers to whom I allude—I will not mention their
names—having received the same impression, they have at once jumped to
the conclusion in which they invite their readers to concur, that the
Orthodox Eastern Church is only a branch of the abhorred Church of Rome.
There is, as I have shewn, some excuse for the first impression, but
nothing could be more erroneous or unjust than the conclusion to which
they have arrived. I acknowledge that the robes of the Greek priests
differ in no material point from those worn by the priests of Rome; and I
admit that there are pictures in their churches; but I do most
unhesitatingly deny—what has been stated by more than one writer—that
there are images to be found in these churches, or that they are
worshipped by the adherents of the Orthodox Eastern Church. {284} The
offending pictures are not prescribed by the Church.
The Orthodox Eastern Church does not include among its doctrines the
worship of saints; in fact, the pictures are merely portraits of holy
men, who have led blameless lives, and whose virtues the spectator is
invited to imitate by witnessing the honour done to them after death.
The only Mediator acknowledged by the Orthodox Eastern Church, is our
Lord Jesus Christ; in proof of which I may be permitted to quote the
following passage from its doctrines: “The sufferings and death of Christ
are an abundant satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.”
The Virgin is, however, highly reverenced, as being according to the
angel’s declaration “highly favoured and blessed among women.” Some
also, but those chiefly among the most uneducated, address prayers
through her to the Saviour. I may, perhaps, be permitted to establish my
case still more clearly, by pointing out other and more important points
on which the two Churches are at variance.
In the first place the Orthodox Eastern Church denies the power of any
council to alter or to add to the articles of faith. It protested at the
time against the famous council of Trent, since which period the
authority of councils has formed an important article in the laws of the
Romish Church. The Orthodox Eastern Church acknowledges no other guide
and source of doctrine or faith than the Holy Scriptures, as contained in
the Old and New Testaments, which are _open to all_—not proscribed, as is
the case in the Romish Church—and are printed in all the languages of the
various countries in which the Greek Church has adherents. I have even
seen Bibles printed by the zealous Church Missionary Society used in the
Greek Church, and many of the Greek priests requested Mr. Schlincz, while
he was in Syria in 1840, on a mission of enquiry into the persecution of
the Jews of Damascus, to supply them with copies of these. He left with
me several boxes of these books, which I distributed amongst the people
whom I thought likely to profit by them.
It expressly protests against the Romish doctrine of the infallibility of
the Pope, and it recognises our Lord, the Saviour, as the head of the
Church. Surely, these are points of the greatest moment, such indeed as
ought not to have been overlooked by impartial writers, when dwelling on
the character and doctrines of a vast religious body; but there are
others of an equally important nature.
According to its doctrines, the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father
alone, and not from the Father and Son as is asserted by the Romists, and
by the dissenters from the Orthodox Eastern Church, whose origin and
history will be stated in another part of this book. The latter Church
accepts the death of the Saviour as an abundant satisfaction for the sins
of the world; it holds the doctrine of justification by faith; it
denounces the belief in transubstantiation, and in purgatory; and it
departs in another most important point from the practice of that of
Rome, by authorising the marriage of its ministers.
It is not my purpose to fatigue my readers by establishing a relationship
between the Orthodox Eastern Church and that of the United Kingdom, or of
any other country, I am satisfied with having shewn the little value to
be attached to the statements of hasty travellers, and with having, I
hope, fully established a thorough dissimilarity on the most important
points of religious belief between the doctrines and practice of the
Orthodox Eastern Church and that of Rome.
I should have had much more difficulty in doing justice to the claims of
the Orthodox Eastern Church in the eyes of the Protestant public, had the
writers who have sought to establish its affinity to Rome, availed
themselves of other points of weakness, which my pen can neither defend
nor conceal.
First and foremost, to my mind, stands that foolish proceeding, which the
priesthood of the Eastern Church annually practise on the ignorant and
credulous of their disciples; when, on Easter Sunday, following the
example of the Romish Church in manufacturing miracles, they pretend to
draw fire down from heaven; the agency employed on the occasion being
either a lucifer match or a phosphorus bottle. Also the practice of
burning incense during divine service, and of requiring a particular, not
a general, confession before taking the Lord’s Supper.
When I returned to Constantinople, after my first visit to England, I had
several interviews with the head patriarch, and with some of the bishops
of the Orthodox Eastern Church, of which I am an humble though not a
blind adherent. Finding them willing to listen to the remarks of one so
much younger and more ignorant than themselves, whose only advantage
arose from the experience gained by travelling in foreign countries, I
strenuously endeavoured to shew them how erroneous and ill-judged was
their practising miracles, the burning of incense, and other proceedings
by which the senses are deceived, how well calculated they were to
disgust the better educated and more intelligent of their followers, and
eventually to drive them from the bosom of the Church.
The patriarch and the bishops did not seek to discomfit me by learned
arguments or flimsy excuses. Like intelligent men, they acknowledged the
practices complained of to be unnecessary if not improper; but they
assured me, that however sincere their desire to establish a thorough
reform, their efforts for the present were necessarily restricted; a
choice between two evils being the only course which was open to them.
I was compelled to agree with them that the practice of drawing down fire
from heaven on Easter Sunday, as well as that of burning incense in the
churches during divine service, had both been established for so many
years, and that the former especially had taken so deep a hold over the
imagination of my unlettered brethren, that any sudden attempt to abolish
either would at once be regarded as irreligious and revolutionary.
Rather than incur so great a risk, they were content to continue what
they considered the lesser evil; and in the meantime to promote as far as
in them lay, the work of education, by means of which alone change in
this direction is possible. To such an answer, of course, I had no
reply; and I have endeavoured to aid the good cause of education wherever
and whenever it has been in my power.
Such as it is, with all its errors, its imperfections, and its
weaknesses, the Orthodox Eastern Church, the “Thistle of Lebanon,” most
certainly claims precedence in point of antiquity over every other
Christian church, and to my mind it as clearly deserves the sympathy of
all Christians, especially of all who maintain the Protestant faith. For
without other support than the rock of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,
without assistance from abroad, and in slavery at home, this church has
withstood the shock of Mahommedan invasion, and has maintained its
position in Syria during a bondage of more than twelve hundred years.
Nearly all those who now profess its faith must be the lineal descendants
of families who acknowledged its authority and professed its doctrines
before the time of the Hegira; for one of the first laws of our
Mahommedan conquerors reimposed the punishment of death on all Christians
who should seek to gain, and on all who should become, converts to their
faith. It is only of late years that this law has been allowed to fall
into disuse; but it is still most powerful, as the following interesting
anecdote will prove.
Not many days ago, I received a letter from a friend in Syria, in which
amongst other things he informs me of the wonderful fact that the son of
a Mufti had just been converted from Mahommedanism to the doctrines of
the Orthodox Church, notwithstanding this law, and that he had been
received into the bosom of the Church at Syra, in Greece, in order to
prevent the fact from becoming known to the fanatic.
The gentleman, who has just given so striking an illustration of the
power of truth, is a scholar of some repute, a man of more than average
intellectual powers, and naturally of an inquiring turn of mind.
Dissatisfied with the faith of his fathers, he quietly made himself
acquainted with the doctrines of the leading Christian churches in the
East; and after a searching investigation into their relative merits,
after lengthened arguments with several priests of both churches, and
after a close study of the holy Scriptures, he finally resolved upon
renouncing his allegiance to the Prophet, and upon joining a church which
accepts the mediation of the Saviour.
His mind once made up, he immediately announced his desire to be received
into the bosom of the Orthodox Eastern Church to the priest in his own
neighbourhood, who, however, declined to receive so distinguished a
convert, from fear of incurring persecution, and perhaps of bringing the
obnoxious law into fresh operation. Nothing daunted by this refusal, the
conviction of the necessity of his reception into a Christian church
having taken so deep a root in his mind, he at once endeavoured to
succeed in other places.
With this object in view, he wandered from town to town, traversing
nearly all Syria in search of a priest, who would dare to hear his
recantation of Mahommedanism, and to receive his profession of faith in
our Lord; but all was in vain. Wherever he went he was met by a refusal,
on the same grounds as had been assigned by the priest to whom he had at
first applied. Eventually he was under the necessity of leaving his
wife, his family, and his property, to the care of Providence, while he
proceeded to Syra, in Greece, where he happily encountered no further
obstacle to the attainment of his heart’s desire. Many centuries, I
believe, have elapsed since any instance occurred of this severe law
being enforced. He is now settled in Constantinople, without suffering
any molestation on this account.
How great, therefore, the claims of the Orthodox Eastern Church upon, and
how close its affinity to, the Protestant Churches of Western Europe!
Oppressed by its rulers, neglected by its brethren in the faith,
suffering under the general impoverishment of the country, maligned by
many who upon a closer investigation would have declared themselves its
warmest friends, the Orthodox Eastern Church, the “Thistle of Lebanon,”
still stands forth a monument of the enduring force of truth and faith.
It is not easy to make an accurate computation of the numbers of its
adherents, since, like those of every other church in the East, they are
not concentrated in any one district, but are scattered over the whole of
Syria, living chiefly, however, in the plains. Next to the Mahommedans,
they are the most numerous, and I should say, including the Holy Land,
that in round numbers they may safely be estimated at more than three
hundred thousand.
At the head of the Orthodox Eastern Church are four patriarchs; one at
Constantinople, one at Jerusalem, one at Cairo, and one at Damascus. The
latter are in some degree subordinate to the first; but their relations
are ill defined, the power of the chief patriarch being in a great
measure nominal. Whenever a bishop is appointed by one of the patriarchs
in Syria or Egypt, the intervention of the patriarch in Constantinople is
appealed to, to procure the sanction of the Turkish government. This
sanction, I may mention, has never been withheld by the successive
sultans—a degree of toleration hardly to have been expected from the
fanatical followers of Mahommed.
The patriarch in Damascus is called Patriarch of Antioch, the patriarchal
see having remained in Antioch until that city was destroyed by
earthquakes and revolutions. Each patriarch can, within his own
province, suspend members of the priesthood, though they should have
attained the dignity of bishop; but cases of this kind occur very rarely
indeed. Considering the number of its adherents, this church cannot be
said to be wealthy. It is true that it has great landed possessions; but
they are most inefficiently managed, so that its chief sources of revenue
are collections made in the church during the service; the fees paid for
marriages and burials, and for reading prayers with the sick, and for
visits which the priests make every month to the several houses,
sprinkling the apartments with holy water, in order to drive out any evil
spirit that may have taken up his abode there. No one thinks of
inhabiting a new house, or one whose last occupier was a heretic, without
this ceremony being performed. These, however, are all voluntary
payments.
In common with all other ministers of religion within the Turkish
dominions, the priests of the Orthodox Eastern Church are highly favoured
by the law. They pay no taxes whatever; they cannot suffer imprisonment
or any other punishment at the option of the officials, who are hardly
less ignorant than they are extortionate, and whose power over the other
inhabitants is enormous. The only remedy against an offending priest is
to report him to the patriarch of the province, who, either by himself or
with the advice of the patriarch in Constantinople, ordains such a
punishment as the case may deserve.
As a rule, the priests are extremely ignorant and very poor. The
salaries of the patriarchs rarely exceed £500, and many of the ministers
are not in the receipt of more than £40 or £50 a year. The greater
number of these have received but little education; their sole
qualification for their office being, in most cases, the good opinion of
their neighbours and some knowledge of reading or writing.
As the eloquent author of “The Crescent and the Cross” truly says, they
are frequently chosen by the laity of their district from among the
lowest mechanics; and the election is invariably confirmed by the
patriarch if there be nothing against the character of the elect.
Colleges or educational establishments for the priesthood can hardly be
said to exist. It would be ridiculous to give that name to the convent
in Jerusalem, in which the young student is initiated into the manner of
practising those pretended miracles which I have already spoken of as
being annually performed at Easter, and in which he acquires a fair
portion of that spirit of hatred and envy with which the various
religious denominations within the walls of the Holy City regard each
other.
Much has been already accomplished by the enlightened men who have taken
up the cause of the apostles, and who are labouring hard to dispel the
dark cloud of ignorance which hangs over the minds of my countrymen like
a heavy cloud. With the knowledge and the elements of the true faith
which they are zealously disseminating, I do not despair not merely of a
thorough reform of the Orthodox Eastern Church, but of an entire change
in the mutual relations of the several religious bodies. Where there was
hatred, there shall be love; and the spirit of envy shall be transformed
into that of emulation.
The service of the Orthodox Eastern Church is always performed in the
native language, and consists of prayers, scripture-readings, a sermon,
which is, however, generally only a simple explanation or commentary on
chapters from the Holy Bible, and in chaunting hymns. The priests, as I
have previously mentioned, wear robes differing but very little from
those worn by the priesthood of the Church of Rome. It is customary to
separate the sexes during the service; the galleries being devoted
exclusively to the reception of the females, and the body of the Church
to the males. Only the aged are allowed seats, of which there are very
few, and the young men are forced to stand.
At the commencement of the service, the officiating priest traverses the
church, scattering incense from a censer. During Lent, strict observers
of the law abstain from all animal food, even from eggs, milk, butter,
and cheese, and they further fast from night till noon. At this period
they also abstain from the use of all spirituous or vinous fluids. At
all seasons of the year it is customary to practise abstinence on
Wednesdays and Fridays. The sacrament is usually administered twice a
month. It consists of leavened bread and wine mixed together, and is
administered by the officiating clergyman with a spoon, the formula used
on this solemn occasion being nearly the same as that employed in the
English Church.
I have mentioned the existence of dissenters from the Orthodox Eastern
Church in Syria. They are called Greek Roman Catholics, and have existed
rather more than one hundred and fifty years. The founder of this sect
was a priest named Karolus, who had been elected patriarch of Antioch,
or, as the functionary is called, patriarch of Damascus.
The election was, however, not ratified by the head patriarch of
Constantinople on account of the doctrines held by the new patriarch on
the subject of the Holy Spirit. Karolus maintained, in contradiction to
the established doctrine of the Orthodox Eastern Church, that the Holy
Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son, as is asserted by the Roman
Catholic Church. On a closer inquiry into the religious tenets of the
elect of Damascus, it was discovered that his opinions were heretical
also on other points, for he was found to entertain a very favourable
bias towards the doctrine of purgatory, and also of works of
supererogation. In consequence, the patriarch of Constantinople
dispatched to Damascus a more trustworthy follower to fill the vacant
post.
While the dispute was still pending, Karolus had been indefatigably
working to increase the numbers of his own adherents; and the see of
Rome, but too glad to have so eligible an opportunity of adding to its
influence in a quarter where all its former efforts had been in vain,
immediately despatched some of its cleverest emissaries to Karolus for
the purpose of inducing him not to give way in the dispute, and promising
him the support of the Pope.
These emissaries were but too successful. What their arguments could not
effect, they obtained by money and promises. Amongst other things, they
held out hopes to Karolus of preferment in the Romish Church, and finally
their influence prevailed over the advice, the entreaties, and the solemn
admonition of the chief patriarch of Constantinople. Karolus entered the
Church of Rome, humbly and submissively acknowledging the authority of
the Pope, by whom he was created bishop of Antioch. Since then all the
well-known energies of the Romish propaganda, all the wealth, the
influence, the tactics of that unscrupulous power have been used with
great effect to increase the number of dissenters from the Orthodox
Eastern Church.
In this case, there may be found additional evidence of the
unscrupulousness of the chief agents of the authorities at Rome. Though
it is the law of that Church, and one that is most strictly enforced,
that Roman Catholic priests shall live in perpetual celibacy, the Greek
Roman Catholic priests, as the dissenters from the Orthodox Eastern
Church are called, are permitted to marry, and they are further allowed
to retain the rites of the Church from which they have deserted. Perhaps
these anomalies have been purposely continued in order to facilitate the
perversion of the faithful adherents of the Orthodox Eastern Church by
inducing the belief, that the two Churches are identical.
Like the parent Church, that of the Greek Roman Catholics is scattered
throughout Syria, but its adherents reside chiefly in the plains; their
numbers may be computed at about sixty thousand. It was most successful
in making proselytes while Syria was under the Egyptian rule; at which
period the government seemed to make it a point to place in positions of
trust and emolument chiefly such persons as acknowledged the authority of
the Pope of Rome.
It must not be supposed, that this preference was the result of a
peculiar partiality on the part of the pachas for the Roman Catholic
religion; for it has been tolerably well ascertained, that this
favourable bias was the result of the direct mediation of the Sacred
College at Rome, whose members, it may be imagined, rendered some
equivalent service to the Egyptian government.
It is not many years since Baachery Bey, a member of the divan in
Damascus, of the same faith, procured from Maximius, the patriarch of the
Greek Roman Catholics, permission to erect a Church in that city; and
with it the still higher authority of Mehemet Ali, who ordered the church
to be built without giving the petitioners the trouble of first obtaining
a firman. This church is now one of the finest in Damascus, and is yet
another of the records existing in Syria of the unscrupulousness
exhibited by the Church of Rome in the selection of its agents.
In 1840, there arose a great dispute between the heterodox patriarch
Maximius and the orthodox patriarch of Antioch, on the dress worn by the
priests in the Greek Roman Catholic Church. The latter complained that
the priests under the tutelage of his Romish opponent did not, in this
respect, conform to the exact rules prescribed by the head of their own
Church, but continued to wear one similar to that worn by his own
priests. This the orthodox patriarch considered to be highly offensive,
and even dangerous, since the ignorant and credulous public were but too
likely to be enticed by this similarity into the belief, that the
doctrines of the two Churches were identical.
The matter was referred to Constantinople; was discussed by the
contending parties before the head patriarch of the Orthodox Eastern
Church, and finally submitted to the decision of the Turkish authorities.
After both parties had wasted much time, great patience, and no
inconsiderable sums of money, the authorities either found the gold of
the Orthodox Eastern Church to be both brighter and heavier, or else the
influence of the Czar was too powerful for them, for they at last decided
that Maximius and his priests should wear a peculiar hat (_kalloosee_)
with many corners to distinguish them from those of the Orthodox Church.
It is not only in trifles, however, that the Turkish authorities are
called upon to decide between these two Churches—the Mahommedan laymen to
arbitrate between Christian ministers! Unhappily their interference is
sometimes demanded in matters of far higher importance.
The mutual jealousies of the Christian sects, their envy and hatred, have
reached such a pitch, that, on the most sacred festival in the Christian
year, when devout pilgrims from all parts of the earth, who have wandered
to Jerusalem for the purpose, are in the holiest of all localities within
the Holy City, Turkish soldiers are required to keep the peace between
them. At the very tomb of our Saviour, Christianity is disgraced by the
quarrels of its believers, and Mahommedans are called in to prevent them
from shedding the blood or taking the lives of each other.
Political animosity has perhaps more to do with this melancholy
exhibition than simple religious discord. Hasty and ill-judged have been
the measures of protection which the great powers of Europe, at different
times, and from motives dwelt upon elsewhere, have accorded to one or the
other of the religious bodies in the East. Great Britain, France,
Russia, and Austria, have all, without due cause, interfered to
_protect_, as they say, their _protégés_ from undue oppression; but the
result of their protection has not only brought them into unpleasant and
dangerous contact with each other, excited and nourished envy and hatred
among the protected, but has still further shaken the foundations of “our
ancient ally,” as the Porte is called in England, whose existence is said
to be so intimately bound up with the maintenance of that unintelligible
paradox, “the balance of power in Europe.”
At the moment of writing these lines, the diplomatic representatives of
the great powers resident in Constantinople, the ministers of the great
powers themselves, are in the agonies of negotiation, as their peculiar
proceedings are diplomatically termed; and the noble representative of
Great Britain has been hastily ordered to return to the seat of his
mission, in order that the British influence may not suffer from a
partial or one-sided decision of the case. It is to be hoped that the
result of all these diplomatic efforts, or even that of the still more
terrible instrumentality of war, may ultimately tend to the benefit and
improvement of the unhappy people whose country is to become the field of
contention.