from fact to probable conjecture. The Marquis visited Rome on his way, and had an interview with the Pope. Louis Napoleon had need of the Pope's assistance in some of his designs. He has need of it still. The Marquis de Lavalette was instructed (this is my conjecture) to negotiate with the Pope the terms upon which his master should have the countenance of His Holiness in his political projects. The Pope bargained for the protectorate of the Holy Places. Here ends conjecture, and facts again begin. The Marquis did come to Constantinople. He did put in a claim for the restoration of the Holy Places to the Latins. He did enforce that claim by certain severe threats. He did assert for France an ancient protectorate of the Holy Land. He carried all before

him. His violence and denunciation succeeded in obtaining from the Porte a firman transferring to the Latins the guardianship of the most important of the Holy Places. It is here that Russia first appears upon the field, and she appears as the champion of the Eastern Church. She interposed her powerful veto. She insisted upon the execution of the firman previously granted to her. She, too, threatened; and in the eyes of Turkey her threats are bigger than those of France. She, too, succeeded; and the Porte, following its usual policy, sent secret orders to Syria that the firman granted to France should not be executed. It was not executed; and the Marquis de Lavalette, who had gone home to report his victory and to reap his reward, was obliged to hasten back to Constantinople, to re-adjust the disturbed balance, and to resuscitate his dishonoured firman. This he succeeded in doing; and Russia found herself again baulked by the Imperial President.

"At this point comes in the mission of Menschikoff. He was a special envoy on the part of Russia, as Lavalette had been on the part of France. Undoubtedly, his first instructions were to adjust the question of the guardianship of the Holy Places. I think there is reason to believe, that at the first these were his only instructions. At least, if he had others, they were held in reserve. He came to Constantinople with a great display of power and pride. The Czar knows well how to deal with the Sultan. The noise of navies reviewed, and camps visited, of deadly preparations for war, of armaments gathering in the Crimea, was a fitting preliminary to the message which he had to bear. He entered Constantinople as it were in triumph, as the ambassador of Louis XIV. did, when he came armed with the same demand. He was escorted by the Greek clergy-a sufficient indication of the esteem in which the Greek Church held this mission of Menschikoff-a sufficient answer, let me add, to the idle and improbable reports that the Greeks are unfavourable to the demands of Russia. He refused to recognize the Reiss Effendi, or Minister for Foreign Affairs, who, as he alleged, had deceived his master the Emperor, in the matter of the firmans. He demanded a full restoration. Here France yielded. Louis Napoleon doubtless saw that a contest with Russia would cost more than the protectorate of the Holy Places and the friendship of the Pope would gain for him. He renounced the acts of his ambassador, replaced him by a man of milder qualities, and yielded to the re-establishment of the status in quo ante bellum, the condition of things which prevailed before this war of diplomatic papers began.

Thus far the mission of Menschikoff was successful. He gained

But he did not return. He

that which apparently he came for. remained at Constantinople; and the rumour soon arose that he was pressing other and more important demands. Amidst the smoke of surmise and doubt and conjecture, we could not for a time see the truth. At last it came out, distinctly and in bold relief, that he had asked of Turkey the protectorate of the Greek Christians, and that the Sultan refused thus to sign away his sovereignty." Pp. 7—9.

And now for what he considers to be the morality of the question:

"Here comes in the gist of the question. How could Russia demand any such compact from the Sultan with reference to the government of his own subjects? Was it not an arbitrary stretch of power, a violation of international law, an impertinence, and an insult, thus to require a weaker nation to promise that it would rule any portion of its people after a certain rule or mode? It certainly appears so,-it certainly is so, viewing the question as now arising for the first time between Russia and Turkey, and viewing the sovereignty of Turkey as standing till now unimpaired towards all foreign nations. But if it shall appear that that sovereignty, of which so much has been said in a tone as of deep sympathy with the oppressed, be a thing of unreality, which Turkey does not pretend to sustain towards other powers-if it be proved that Russia demands no more of her than she has voluntarily granted, and still grants, to others—the question, it seems to me, comes to wear a different aspect, especially if it can be shown that the Russian demand is intended to counterbalance a specific grant made by the Sultan in the opposite direction.

"There is no Christian Government, not even our own, which treats Turkey as sovereign and independent. Since the battle of Navarino, she has not only existed by European sufferance, but has been governed by European dictation. Each one of the five Great Powers is free to exercise its dictatorship, not only in matters affecting its own interests, but in affairs purely Turkish, and in the interior administration of the government. Hardly a day passes that the Porte does not receive from some one or other of these Powers, in some shape or other, opinions and representations with regard to its conduct which it dares not neglect; and these opinions and representations ofttimes conveyed in language which one friend would hardly venture to use to another. This has especially been true since the compact of 1841, when, after the Syrian war, after the united Powers of Europe had prevented Mohammed Ali from reaching the throne of Turkey, when nought else than their opposition stood in his way, they agreed that the integrity of Turkey should be preserved, and that she should be taken under their united tutelage. From that time to this, Turkey has been under tutors and governors; and a nation under tutors and governors is neither sovereign nor independent. This is a very important view in our present discussion, because it serves to put the conduct of Russia in its true light, whether that light be a more or less amiable one.

"I have said that even our own Government does not recognize the sovereignty of Turkey. I will give an illustration of my meaning. I suppose that there is no prerogative of sovereignty more clear and un

doubted than the right of a nation to execute its laws over all and on all who reside within its territory. This does not Turkey. No European nation, nor the American Government, allows the Government of Turkey to administer justice to any one of its citizens found in any district in the Ottoman Empire. If an American robs or burns or murders,. though it be against one of the Sultan's own subjects, he is not subjected to the execution of the laws of Turkey. He is delivered up to the minister of the United States." Pp. 11–13.

"In the year 1844 (subsequent to the European compact of 1841), the Governments of England and France united in a demand upon the Sultan, that he should abrogate the Mohammedan law, which requires that a man apostatizing from Mohammedanism shall be put to death. I will not carry you through the long controversy that ensued. It will suffice to say that the Porte evaded, by every device in its power, the execution of the demand. It represented to these great powers that the law in question was a fundamental law of the Empire; that it was a law of their religion, with which the Government could not interfere; that it was based upon a decree of Mohammed, whom they believed to be an inspired prophet; that it was, therefore, in their estimation a revealed law of Deity; that if they should attempt to abrogate it the religious orders would rise in rebellion, and incite the common people, over whom they had unbounded sway, to tumult and insurrection. But in vain. England and France were inexorable; and the result was, that on the 21st of March, 1844, the Sultan himself, in his own handwriting, promised that the law should no more be executed. Compare this now with the present conduct of Russia. She does not ask that any law be abrogated, but only that the ancient and acknowledged immunities and rights of the Greek Church be secured to it in the future, by a written pledge. She does not ask that the royal word be given. She will be satisfied with a simple note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs. If she is thereby bringing attaint to the sovereignty of Turkey, what have England and France been doing? They are the acknowledged protectors of all who choose to abandon Islamism. In like manner, and still more recently, England has demanded that the Porte recognize as a separate sect that portion of its subjects who have chosen to leave the Mother Churches of the East, and call themselves Protestants,' and she has succeeded in the demand. The fact has been proclaimed, with much of congratulation, in this country; and the thanks of the principal Missionary Board in the United States have been rendered to the British Ambassador for his efforts. These are but illustrations, specimens by the way, of the sovereignty of Turkey, as exercised in matters cognate with that which is now in question. They may show, at least, with how much of grace England and France can talk of sustaining the independence of the Sultan against the encroachments of his Northern neighbour, and with how much of consistency wise men among ourselves are ready to excite a crusade, with the cross reversed, for the support of the great Mohammedan Power of the East." Pp. 14, 15.

And, now, lastly, as to the interests dependent on its issue :"The true question at issue is purely a Christian question; and by this aspect of it our sympathies respecting it should be mainly regu

lated. However, as men, we might be conscious of a certain kindliness of feeling towards the nation which is the weaker in the contest; however natural and spontaneous this feeling may be; yet, as Christians and Churchmen, we cannot avoid, if we would view it aright, the entrance of a higher principle into the consideration. It is really a question between the Oriental and the Latin Church. Divested of all collateral issues, it is simply a question whether Eastern Christianity shall have the same kind and degree of foreign protection that is accorded to the comparatively insignificant body of those who, remaining as before subjects of the Sultan, have seceded, or are the descendants of those who have seceded, from the Oriental Church to the Papal Communion." Pp. 21, 22.

For France, he says, it is consistent, it is to be expected, that she should espouse the Latin, as opposed to the Greek, interests"But for England! alas, alas! if the Cross of S. George is to be borne over the waters of the Mediterranean, not alone to carry aid and comfort to the powers of darkness which rally under the banner of the Crescent, but to inflict a wound upon the ancient Christianity of the East, from which it may never recover! by taking side with the party that represents the Latin interests in this strife, she incurs for herself, and by necessary consequence for the English Communion, the deep and probably perpetual hostility of the Greek Church. Indeed, every religious consideration seems to be merged in her political jealousy of Russia." P. 24.

* * *

We have already said that we did not intend to express any opinion upon the Bishop's arguments. We may note, however, that this very last sentence, with which he concludes his pamphlet, suggests the reply which must be made by any one who would care to answer him. Viewed as a religious war (as the Czar, in all his manifestoes, is careful to represent it), it would be altogether indefensible; but in a political point of view, all parties combine in telling us that it is a necessity.

May He who alone is able avert the evils which the Bishop apprehends! We have long been practically a very questionable friend to the Orthodox Communions of the East. Witness Bishop Gobat and the Church Missionary Society.

REVIEWS AND NOTICES.

An Introductory Sketch of Sacred History: being a concise digest of notes and extracts from the Bible, and from the works of approved authors. 8vo. pp. 200. J. H. Parker, Oxford and London.

66

THIS volume is very accurately described by its title-page. It is a digest of notes," formed upon an extensive reading of all such works as have been published in England during the last few years in illustration of the history, chronology, or geography of those nations and countries which are at all connected with the events recorded either in the Old or New Testament. This is its merit, as regards comprehensiveness; as well as its chief drawback in respect of interest. A string of notes does not form a lively narrative; and we are apt to miss the master-mind which alone can give unity to materials so discordant. Nevertheless, the volume will be found a very useful companion to the "Five Empires," inasmuch as it supplies those chronological and genealogical tables which could not find a place in the brief and spirited sketch of the ex-Archdeacon.

The author has no right to say that the "Apocrypha is rejected from our Canon as uninspired." The Articles and Homilies both refer to it as part of Holy Scripture: it is only the amount of its inspiration which is doubtful.

A Commentary on the Litany. By A. P. FORBES, D.C.L., Bishop of Brechin. London, Masters.

THERE is always a great difficulty in noticing devotional works, such as that which is now before us; in fact, they cannot be treated critically except when they are made the medium of conveying false doctrine; and from this we are, of course, abundantly secure in the hands of the Bishop of Brechin.

In respect to style and execution, their favour with the reader will always depend on the degree to which, in the infinite variety of mental constitution, they meet his peculiar idiosyncrasy in their expression of devotional feeling. The former works of this author have, however, already proved that his mode of writing commends itself to a large class of persons, and those chiefly of the most refined and delicate perceptions. Like its predecessors, this volume largely displays the philosophical turn of his mind, and contains much sound theology. Perhaps its most remarkable characteristic, however, is the great research which it manifests; it is enriched with so many extracts from the Fathers, that it really becomes a complete resumé of Patristic learning on the subject of which it treats. We notice that at the close the author questions the certainty of the prayer commonly attributed to S. Chrysostom being indeed by that Father, because the authority which so appropriates it is only that of S. Basil, and not of any writer of the Latin Communion. It appears to us, however, that in all that concerns the great Bishop of Constantinople, the authority of the Eastern Church ought to be received, rather than that of the Western. And it is a significant fact, that to this day the prayer is constantly used in the Greek Liturgy, as being in very truth the words of " Holy John of the Golden Mouth."