Chapter XII (2)

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.

The king and queen were untiring in tender attentions to Mademoiselle. She writes: "I was so accustomed to their caresses, that I called the king _petit papa_, and the queen _petit mama_, really believing her to be so, because I had never seen my own mother." After enumerating the various little girls of quality who came to play with her, she adds: "I was never so occupied with any game as to be inattentive if a reconciliation with Monsieur was mentioned. Cardinal Richelieu, who was prime minister and master of affairs, was determined to control this matter; and with proposals so degrading to Monsieur that I could not listen to them without despair. He said that to make Monsieur's peace with the king, his engagement to Princess Marguerite de Lorraine must be broken, that he might marry Mademoiselle de Combalet, the cardinal's niece, now Madame d'Aiguillon. I could not help crying when it was mentioned to me, and in my anger sang, in revenge, all the songs I knew against the cardinal and his niece. It even redoubled my friendship for Princess Marguerite, and made me talk of her incessantly."