CHAPTER XVI.

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.