gained experience, and will never again advance by the difficult route of the Danube and the Balkan, though even in that direction her progress has not been slight, and there is truth in what was said by one of her diplomatists:* "We are repaid for all our losses in the Crimea and in Bessarabia by what we have gained in the Principalities. From enemies we have made them friends." But Russia has an efficient fleet of merchant steamers in the Black Sea, and before defensive measures could be adopted, might land thirty thousand men in the neighborhood of Constantinople, where they would find thousands of Greeks and other sympa thizers to assist them. But the great step which Russia has made, and it is one that more than compensates for the fall of Sebastopol, is the overthrow and expulsion of the Circassian tribes. As long as the almost impenetrable defiles of the Caucasus were occupied and defended by a hundred thousand such soldiers as the Circassians, the Russians never could have advanced in great force into the Turkish provinces. The giant of the north was chained like Prometheus to a rock, where the eagle of war fed on his vitals, but his fetters are now broken, and the way is clear. Into the localities deserted by the Circassians will pour a stream of Cossacks, and the great army of two hundred thousand men, which has been hitherto engaged in Caucasia, will now be able to detach two thirds of its number to invade Turkey or Persia. In the mean time, Turkey is likely to derive little benefit from the immigration of hordes of turbulent and semi-barbarous mountaineers. The author of the Rambles in Syria thus speaks of those who had immigrated into Turkey in 1860:† "Robbery seems to be their present pursuit, while preparing to form agricultural settlements. It would surely have been wise to reflect whether or not the authorities under whose rule they are intended to establish themselves, are in a position to preserve order, before thus adding to the number of a disorderly population." On the whole, therefore, Russia is now in a better position for an attack on Turkey, and Turkey in a worse for resisting that attack than before the Crimean war; and *A Journal kept in Turkey and Greece in 1857 and 1858, p. 96. + Rambles in the Deserts of Syria, p. 285. to expect more forbearance from Russia now than formerly appears to be simply an absurdity, and the same reasoning applies, though in a less degree, to other European nations. The second fallacy, which seems to pervade the arguments of almost all those who maintain that the integrity of the Turkish empire can be preserved is, the supposition that the Turks are willing to be assisted in the way their European allies think best. This is to take from the Turk all that distinguishes him from other sects and races, and to suppose him wholly uninfluenced by the religion which makes of him at one moment a moody bigot, at another a fanatical zealot. It is to ignore the testimony of all the most reliable witnesses, who assure us that the Turk is still "what he was four centuries ago,?' that he retains "the characteristics of his savage intractable ancestors,' "*that "he is utterly unimprovable,t that he hates change, and therefore hates civilization, hates Europeans, and hates and fears all that they propose.' It is to deny the saying which is now in the mouths of even those Turks who have been most in contact with European ideas, and who reply to suggestions for the improvement of the races under their sway with the pithy saying, "We came into Europe with the sword, and we will go out of it with the knife." Let those who expect improvement under the Turkish rule, or such modification of the rule as will render its continuance over millions of Christians possible in these days, examine well the character of the Mohammedan religion, and see whether it be reasonable to expect the desired changes while Islam continues the religion of the State, supported by a priesthood constituted as is that of Turkey. A very slight investigation of the principles of Islam will show that though they may, as Mohammedans boast, breathe freedom to the true believer, they absolutely enjoin restraint and degradation as the lot of all others. Were it not logically demonstrable, it is at least practically proved by the history of eleven hundred years, that Mohammedanism and civilization are incompatible. The utmost that can be achieved with Islam as the religion of the State, is *Rambles in the Deserts of Syria, pp. 44, 98. A Journal kept in Turkey and Greece in 1857 and 1858, p. 28. a strong government under an absolute | no doubt, ever continue such as they have monarch. With such a government there been from the first, such as they recently may be considerable development of na- showed themselves in the Indian mutiny; tional resources, a magnificent court, and after years of intercourse with Englishmuch splendor of living in the families of men, unchangeable in their bigotry and the chiefs or nobles, but the state of the hatred and contempt of other sects. But people will be such as it was under Mo- a creed, the essential part of which is to hammed Ali, Pasha of Egypt. The se- trample on all other creeds, if it came to curity of the subject under such a ruler is be despised in its turn, could not survive well illustrated by the story of the jaded-it would die out. There is a foreshadcourier who had brought a letter of im- owing of this in Persia and in Baghdad, portance to the pasha. As this unfortu- where the aspirations after freedom of nate had been told that the errand was some ardent spirits have led to the develurgent he had exerted himself to the ut-opment of a new sect, the Bábís, who most to arrive in time, and, sinking with fatigue, expected his reward. The pasha, on the other hand, was anxious that the communication should remain a secret, and as one means to this end, the courier, half an hour after his arrival, was at the bottom of the Nile with a heavy stone round his neck. A simple tale this, and but one example of myriads of how the life of a subject is valued by a Mohammedan ruler. In point of fact, the ablest rulers in all Mohammedan dynasties have shown their impatience of Islam by becoming heretics. They have felt it impossible to inaugurate those reforms, which their genius or their good feeling prompted, without breaking through the shackles of their religion. So early as the first centuries of Islam the most renowned Khalifs, as Vathek and Mamún, had become heretics and had adopted the principles of the Motazelah, among whom were sects inclining to Christianity. The greatest of the Mogul emperors, Akbar, did his best to found a new religion, as did Hallun, the most remarkable of the Egyptian sultans. The present state of the Turkish government, based on the miserable doctrines of the Koran, and yet coqueting with European improvements, is altogether forced and unnatural. To be strong, Mohammedanism must go back to what it was at its commencement, stern, uncompromising, and aggressive, such as it has become again among the Wahabis, or it will lose its vitality and succumb to a more enlightened faith. It is not, indeed, to be expected that Mohammedans would be converted in great numbers if the scepter departed from among them, but the Turks, at least, with their peculiar habits, would melt away and disappear among the increasing masses of Greeks, Armenians, and other Christians. The disciples of Islam would, show "no antipathy to Christians, or to the followers of any other creed except the Mohammedans."* The Bábís are converted Mohammedans, and if their numbers should increase they would extirpate Islam. On the whole, then, it would appear that the Turks are "an unimprovable race," and that no efforts can bolster up their government long. What policy is to be adopted, then, in lieu of that struggle to avoid the inevitable which has already cost us such sacrifices? We can not here accept the counsels of the author of the Rambles in Syria, who, after vivid sketches of the decadence of Turkey, still returns to that impossible scheme of interested physicians treating disinterestedly a patient that rejects all medicine. Common sense, on the other hand, would say, "If the dying must die, let care be taken of those who are to survive." the Turkish power decays, life begins to reänimate the nationalities that have lain so long in a deathlike trance beneath it. Greece, for example, begins to revive, and though the new State of the Hellenes may have to pass through a long season of troublous energy, it can not be doubted that a prosperous future is in store for it. Why should there be less hope for the Principalities, the Servians, the Bulgarians, the Armenians, Syrians, Egyptians, and Arabs? As the ship founders, let raft after raft be cut adrift, and by the success of these several ventures all will be saved. This seems to be the view adopted by the author of Chaos, though his thoughts are somewhat indistinctly shadowed forth, and his suggestions are rather for being prepared to act than for action. He speaks of "England that preserves Turk *Life and Manners in Persia, p. 179. ish rule not for the sake of Turkish rule, | ambassador, the best attachés, the best but for the sake of sheltering the imma- consuls, the best Englishmen not Levantture growth of future free nations against ines, are, as Lord Strangford justly says, the destroying blight of despotisms far required to do England's work in Turmore dangerous, if not worse, than Tur- key. key." Further on he refers to the policy of England toward Turkey as dual, "Liberal in one sense and direction"-that is, we suppose, as regards the nationalities; and "Conservative in another "-that is in supporting the Turkish government. Again he says, "But we must also look to see that, after putting the sick man in his coffin when much breath is still in his body, we may have something better to take his place than a nursery full of fractious and rickety children." Viewing it in this light, many will be disposed to regard our imperial policy as "both expedient for all parties and right in itself." But, is it quite the case that protection of "the immature growth" of the nationalities under Turkish rule is recognized by us as of such paramount importance? If so, what becomes of the guarantee that the Turkish territories shall remain as they are? It must be explained to mean Turkey to the Turks, in reversion to their subject nationalities when ripe for self government. But who is to decide when "the immature growth of these future free nations" reaches maturity? For this we want our country," says Lord Strangford, "to be served in Turkey by the most perfect and highest type of English manhood;" we must have Englishmen, not Levantines; and the best Englishmen we can get, instructed by "travel in Turkey and intercourse with the people," and comprehending the rising nationalities. But it may be asked, Is even this limited and temporary support of the Turkish power, this trusteeship for immature nations, possible? Are there not too many suitors for these tender wards, not to make us fear they may be wedded to undeserving strangers under our very eyes? Perhaps not, for there is a potent influence at work, which might fight on our side "nationality is taking its place as a new power, among us ;" and it may be added, that the liberal party throughout Europe would support it, while one great despotism at least could hardly now disown it. - The danger is that we chill and alienate this power, these budding nationalities, by joining hands too long with the effete government of the Turk. For guidance in so difficult a policy, the best Thus far as regards the "dual policy" and its adroit manipulation by the ablest men that can be selected. Something more, however, is required, something practical, to meet the sharp practice of physicians not so unselfish as England in their attendance on the sick man. On three different sides of the Turkish empire three great powers are preparing vantage-ground to spring forward when the last scene of all arrives. France advances by the line of Africa and Egypt, where the completion of the Lesseps canal would give her overwhelming influence. Russia is peopling Circassia with Cossacks, and sits now in terrible strength before the open portal which leads into the center of Asiatic Turkey. Austrian troops are being massed upon the fronteir of the Principalities, and in that direction, and toward Bosnia, the German power is pre-potent. The strength of England lies in linking herself with India by the nearest bridge across Turkish territory. As England acted on India in putting down its mutinies, so might she draw support from India in a great struggle in Syria, Mesopotamia, or Egypt. For every Sepoy regiment that landed with Baird in Egypt, ten regiments of Sikhs, little, if at all, inferior to Russian or French regiments, could now be drawn from India. But the way must be prepared. It will not do to alienate Persia by coldness and indifference, and to leave her to be bribed by France. with offers of the coveted shrines of Kerbela and Najuf and Kázimain. It is but a shallow policy that surrenders the shah's army to be officered by Frenchmen and Germans, that would let Persian ships of war, manned or at least officered by Frenchmen, make their appearance in the Persian Gulf. It would be little creditable were a French company to get the start of English enterprise, not only with a Suez canal, but also with a Syrian, Mesopotamian, and Persian railroad. To sum up in few words, safe and rapid communication with India, implying and including a commanding influence throughout the line, is what will give England strength to resist her rivals when he Turkish empire breaks up. India, in mentions how anxious he was to have the But does the well-known argument of Butler satisfy? James Martineau has, we know, ventured to express himself thus: "You have led me in your quest after analogies through the great infirmary of God's creation, and so haunted am I by the sights and sounds of the lazarhouse, that scarce can I believe in any thing but pestilence; so sick of soul have I become, that the mountain-breeze has lost its scent of health; and you say, it is all the same in the other world, and wherever the same rule extends: then I know my fate, that in this world justice has no throne. And thus, my friends, it comes to pass, that these reasoners often gain indeed their victory; but it is known only to the Searcher of Hearts, whether it is a victory against natural religion or in favor of revealed. For this reason I consider the "Analogy" of Bishop Butler (one of the profoundest of thinkers, and on purely moral subjects, one of the justest, too), as containing with a design directly contrary, the most terrible persuasives to atheism that have ever been produced. The essential error consists in selecting the difficulties, which are the rare exceptional phenomena of nature, as the We may well, however, as this is the basis of analogy and argument." There state of the argument, desire to see the is a remarkable conversation recorded by argument of analogy fairly expounded, Wilberforce with William Pitt, in which and its extent and limitations defined; Pitt declared to Wilberforce, "that But for there is a tendency to undue extension ler's work raised more doubts in his mind of analogy, as when Hegel affirms, "that than it answered." And Sir James Mac- as in the doctrine of the Trinity, the intosh is reported to have said of the Father and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, Analogy, "This can only be an answer represent the infinite and the finite, and to deists; atheists might make use of the union of the two, their identity first, his objections, and have done so." By then their distinction, and their return to another writer, Dr. Schedel, the argu- identity; so the doctrine of the Incarnament of Butler has been characterized as tion has a meaning no less philosophical," "the analogy of uncertainty," and "the etc., etc., etc. We may well be jealous analogy of mystery;" while Miss Hen- of any attempts to establish the doctrine nell, a well-known extreme skeptical of the Trinity upon a rational basis, writer, has claimed the Analogy as an ally chiefly by means of certain natural analoto skepticism. Yet this is not the im-gies supplied by the consciousness of the pression Butler produced upon the skep- human mind; there are casuistical, jesuititics of his own day. David Hume, the cal, and refining skeptics, as well as begreat king of skeptics of almost any age lievers and theologists, and we believe it or nation, but especially of the later days, is from such hands, perhaps on both sides, looked upon him with something of awe; the argument of analogy, and Butler's |