{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_46608/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_46608","id":"gutenberg_46608","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46608","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - European","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Europe -- Politics and government -- 1815-1871","Turkey -- Foreign relations","Turkey -- History -- 1829-1878"],"text":"SHALL TURKEY LIVE OR DIE?\n\n  THOMAS CARLYLE, Esq.\n\n  Advocate\n\n  LONDON:\n\n  THOMAS BOSWORTH, 215 REGENT STREET.\n\n  MDCCCLIV.\n\n  LONDON:\n\n  Printed by G. Barclay, Castle St. Leicester Sq.\n\n\n\n\nSHALL TURKEY LIVE OR DIE?\n\n\nThe European war now impending differs from the last in every important\nfeature,\u2014in its theatre, its origin, and its issues. Never was a\ncontest more mysterious and unexpected in its rise, more unwelcome to\nthe majority of those engaged in it, and more pregnant with grave yet\nuncertain consequences. There are three classes of men whose minds\nit especially occupies. While the religious eschatologist expects a\nnew phase of predicted fulfilment, and the speculative politician\na new distribution of territory and influence, the practical man\nseeks a fuller explication and enforcement of existing interests and\nobligations. Although they who see in all things the guiding hand of\nGod are warranted to expect that, in the communion of the faithful,\nthere shall be a divine presentiment of His holy procedure, yet the\nattempt to map out the future is in too many very idle, and in some\nmost presumptuous. On the other hand, those who try every fresh event\nby the mere letter of protocols, fail to apprehend its true moral\nimportance, and would bind the God of Providence by the impotent will\nof man. He that would rightly estimate or improve the present juncture\nmust avoid both of these errors. And while he regards it in its highest\naspects, he must not be hurried into foregone conclusions as to its\nissues.\n\n\u201cDestiny\u201d is the watchword of the day. One horn of the Crescent has\nlong rested on Christendom by destiny. A child of destiny now rules\nfor a second time in the West. And scarcely has he, by assuming, in\nprofessed zeal for divine reminiscences, the protectorate of holy\nplaces, excited men\u2019s fears lest he should swell the number of those\nplaces and convert protectorate into possession, when a new protector\nof things sacred arises in the North, also pleading the call of destiny.\n\nWhy these two protectors have not yet come forth to assert their\nrights in single combat; and why the Pope, whose throne is upheld,\nand whose claims are asserted by the former, has acted in silence,\nwhen he might have been expected to utter in encyclical letters the\nJeremiad of insulted authority; are questions yet to be solved. The\nreligious and political champion of the Papacy is now allied to other\npowers on grounds with which Papal claims, religious or political,\nhave nothing ostensibly, at least exclusively, to do. And we now see\nthe northern protector opposed by all the great powers of Europe,\u2014by\nthe open protest of those who will and can withstand him,\u2014by the tacit\nresistance of those who fear to be his friends, yet dare not be his\nfoes.\n\nRecent disclosures, however, warrant the conclusion that the Pope has,\nalthough covertly, been the prime mover in the present troubles. Using\nFrance as a cat\u2019s-paw, he has revived in a stronger form his almost\nobsolete claims to such a protectorate of the Latin interest in the\nHoly Places as shall, at Jerusalem as elsewhere, swallow up every\nother. And the aggression of Russia against Turkey derives considerable\nexcuse from the consideration that the Czar, in aiming a fleshly blow\nat the Sultan, is really aiming a spiritual blow at the Pope. If the\nCatholic Church or the Christian nations are not in a condition to lift\none united testimony against this new assertion of Papal supremacy,\nwe are hardly entitled to complain that one champion throws down the\ngauntlet of denial, provided he does not at the same time assert a\nGr\u00e6co-Sclavonic supremacy, equally unjust, and, from its novelty, more\npregnant with danger. While gentlemen on \u2019Change or in Downing Street\nhave their minds filled with the merely material aspects of the affair,\nthe man who yields the first place to the interests of Christ\u2019s kingdom\ncannot fail to mark that we are apparently on the eve of that great\nwar of principles which Canning foresaw,\u2014of a religious and European\nwar, the issues of which derive, from their very doubtfulness, only\nthe greater solemnity. While the subsistence of Turkey apparently bars\nthe fulfilment of many Christian hopes, its destruction may, by the\nmeans which bring that to pass, greatly endanger the true interests of\nChristendom, and frustrate the grace of God. And we may yet see the\nday when the still blinded and impenitent Jew may make greater profit\nof this new crusade than he did of the former, may step in between\nthe combatants\u2014now on both sides, alas! Christian; and may settle the\ndispute by establishing his own claim to the land of promise in a way\nwhich, although disowned of God till he confess our Messiah, may force,\nor, as a pis-aller, steal recognition from man.\n\nLeaving to others to decide with the pen those technical questions,\nwhich the sword, if drawn, will decide without regard to their paper\nverdict, let us contemplate the attitude of the chief actors in this\nopening drama. And first of Turkey.\n\nWe pray on Good Friday that God would \u201chave mercy upon all\u2014Jews,\nTurks, Infidels, and heretics ... and fetch them home to His fold.\u201d\nAs Turks are herein classed with those who have been unfaithful under\na divine covenant\u2014the old or the new\u2014it has become customary to\nregard them as apostates from the faith, who deserve to be abhorred\nand treated as such. This is however a total misconception. Some\napostates have indeed become Mahomedans; and it is very questionable\nwhether the talent or experience of such men justifies Christian\nmen and Christian governments in using their services. It may be\nthat the once frequent perversion of Christians to Mahomedanism,\nunder the pressure of persecution, in the days when our prayers were\ncomposed, may have dictated this petition. But whatever ravages the\nfalse religion of Mahomet may have wrought among Oriental churches\nand blinded Jews at the first, that religion took its rise among\nheathen; and the present Turks, although converts to that faith which\ndesolated Eastern Christendom, are well known to have issued from a\ncountry where the Christian faith was all but unknown. The conquest\nof a part of Christendom by the Turks, was not an act of apostacy in\nMahomedans, but the judgment of God, religious and political, on the\nunfaithfulness of the Christian Church and State. So that, instead\nof directing our abhorrence against the rod by which God then smote\nHis people, we should rather humble ourselves because we provoked Him\nto use it. Although the superstitious and credulous reverence for the\ntheatre of Christ\u2019s life on earth has too often, like the blessing of\nthe womb that bare Him, been substituted for the hearing and keeping\nof His word, yet no devout mind can fail to regard the scenes of His\nearthly sojourn with awful interest. But the fact that our holy faith\nwent forth from Jerusalem, gave us no right to possess that city. The\nChristian Church has, as a Church, no possession on earth. Rights of\nproperty belong to Christian men, not as Christians, but as men. The\nJew, not the Christian, forfeited Judea. No people but the Jews have\nan original divine right to Judea. And while they remain impenitent\ntheir right passes over, not to us, but to their conquerors. It is,\ntherefore, more than questionable whether the Crusaders had any\nright to attempt the ejection of Mahomedans from the Holy Land. They\nwere more like usurpers than their opponents were. And their conduct\nwas, alas! often too good an argument against their cause. On the\nother hand, there never was a nobler heathen than the leader of the\nMahomedans against the Crusaders. When the Turks, long after, took\nConstantinople, they did no more than many a heathen conqueror has done\nbefore, and many a Christian conqueror since. A living tree was planted\nwhere the tree of an effete government had withered away. A Christian\nconqueror may use his conquest better, just as he has more grace to\nreign, than a heathen. But his right does not lie in his grace. The\n\u201cgood sword,\u201d by which most Christian kings have won and kept their\nlands, is in itself no better than the \u201cgood scimitar\u201d of the Turk. And\nthe conduct of the conqueror of Byzantium towards the faith of his new\nsubjects has often been regarded, especially when we consider the stem\ntenets which he held, as a model of justice and moderation. There has\nseldom been a conquest by a people whose religion was their political\ncharter, over a people of a different faith, which bore fewer marks of\ncruelty. We are, indeed, pointed to the subsequent history of Turkish\nrule as a proof of its unparalleled wickedness. It is even argued that\nthe Turk, having been during four hundred years put to the proof if he\nwas fit to rule, or capable of conveying any blessing to the conquered,\nand having been found wanting, has thus forfeited his right. And it is\nhence concluded, that the time is come when he should be dismissed\nfrom office, not even by the subjects whom he has oppressed, but by\nothers who have none but a Quixotic right to interfere. Men forget,\nhowever, that the form of Turkish oppression has in great part arisen\nfrom the circumstance, that religious principle and secular law are,\nin Turkey, identified. And, as to those cruelties and wrongs which are\nnot the offspring of law, but the fruits of its absence or breach, a\ncomparison between Turkish administration and that of many Christian\ngovernors would not fall out much to the credit of the latter. We need\nlook no farther than to the country which now acts the champion of\nChristian wrongs, for a corruption of justice, a cruelty of punishment,\nand a smothering of true liberty, which Turkey could hardly outdo. And\nit is well known that, for many centuries, even down to the most recent\ntimes, in Egypt, in Syria, nay in Jerusalem itself, while rival parties\nof Christians have broken the peace of society, and disgraced the name\nof Christ, by their bitter animosities, their dishonest intrigues,\nand even their bloody strifes, the disciple of the false prophet has\noften so used his power to maintain good order, so counselled to mutual\nforbearance, and, as an umpire, so laboured to restore harmony by\nthe adjustment of differences, as to make one blush at the relative\npositions of the Crescent and the Cross. While it cannot be denied that\nthe passions of the Turk too often trample down all law, the Christians\non whom he has trampled, either have not yet been tried with power,\nor, where they have, have abused it almost as much against their own\nbrethren. At this very day, the Turk, bad as he is, is a nobler animal\nthan either the treacherous Greek or the busy Armenian; nay, the\nArmenians are too often the most efficient instigators of Mahomedan\ninjustice.\n\nIt will not, therefore, do for us, like children, to beat the object\non which we have wounded ourselves, or bite the rod with which we are\nchastised. But, it may be asked, Are we to forget the zeal of Sobieski,\nand treat the Turk, not as an enemy and a persecutor, but as a brother?\nThe answer is plain. Not as a brother Christian, but as a brother\nman. The fact that God has used the Turk to chastise Christendom, and\nsuffered him to plant his temple of falsehood on the sites of the\nJewish and the Christian fanes, ought, indeed, to make us search into\nthe reason of the punishment, but does not alter the position or rights\nof the instrument employed. We dare not treat the Turk as an apostate\nbecause he has been the scourge of backsliders, or as a man without\nrights because his power has been used against us. We may lament\nthe rise of a new heathen delusion; but we have no right to exclude\nthe deluded from the rights of man. We may lament that a territory\nredeemed from the ocean of paganism has been again submerged; but if\nthe right of conquest is admitted in the law of Christendom, we cannot\ndisown it in the law of the world. The Eastern Empire itself gained\nits place by conquest. And, granting the validity of its territorial\nrights so acquired, it alone was entitled, and, if it could rise\nagain, would be entitled, to vindicate these. Supposing that the Turk\nhad no title to Turkey, surely England, France, Russia and Austria,\nhave as little right to expel him as he to be there. And the fact\nthat they are Christian nations invests them with no new rights or\npolitical privilege. The providence of God has indeed so ordered that\na knot of states in one quarter of the globe have in common embraced\nChristianity, and thereby risen to the head of the nations: and in many\npoints of view, Christendom, as a collective whole, does form and can\nact as a corporate unity, or commonwealth.\n\nIt may well be questioned, however, whether the boasted balance of\npower in Europe, and even the Holy Alliance, have not tended to impair\nnational integrity by unwarranted interference. Each Christian monarch\nhas none over him hut Christ. All others are but his brethren. Their\ntotality has no authority over him in his own kingdom. And although\neach nation may justly protest, as each householder may, against those\nacts of another which affect its just interests, and ought to do its\nbest, by remonstrance, in the cause of truth; yet no nation derives\na right from its imagined spirituality or orthodoxy to dictate the\ninternal administration of another; and, as with individuals, so no\naggregate of nations has, as a European Peace Society, a right to\nprescribe to any one nation terms which it shall observe on pain of\nwar, unless that nation has consented to such arbitration. But be this\nas it may, if the Christian commonwealth is to exhibit its corporate\naction, either by waging Quixotic war on the heathen, or by the united\nrepulse of an inroad on that part of its sacred territory which any\none State may own and can forfeit, or by creating itself a premature\narbiter over the possession of the earth, or by so trampling on the\nintegrity of heathen nations, as to violate the rights of men in order\nto maintain the integrity of the Church and vindicate the rights of\nGod\u2014it had better never have existed than perpetrate such a confusion\nof things heavenly and earthly, and thus build up religion on the ruins\nof justice. Christ came not to destroy but to fulfil. This applies\nto the law of nature, as truly as to the law of Moses. Fallen though\nman be, and prone to evil, there is a conscience of right and wrong,\nas between man and man, in every clime and creed. And the first duty\nof those who would enlighten the consciences of men by heavenly truth,\nis to see that they do not claim or take license to outrage the first\nprinciples of natural justice. The rights of heathen men and states,\n(nay, of apostates,) in things pertaining to this world, are as sacred\nas those of Christians. Faith in Christ is (save by special covenant)\nthe condition of no Monarch\u2019s tenure, of no State\u2019s existence. And\nif the Turk, as a man, has as good a right as a Christian to breathe\nthe air, Turkey, as a state, has as good a claim to subsist and be\nrecognised by other states as England or China has. Its right would\nnot be strengthened by its conversion, and is not impaired by its\ninfidelity. The spiritual, although superior to the natural, does not\nabolish or despise it. The domination of Turkey may injure Christendom.\nBut the right way to be rid of this is not to deny or violate its\nnational rights, but to confess and renounce the moral and spiritual\ndeclension, the heresy, schism, demoralization, and other sins in\nthe early Eastern Church, of which that domination is the condign\npunishment.\n\nIn this light, the Crusades, by whatever zeal for God called forth,\nexhibited, apart from all their attendant moral evils, an evident\nobliteration of moral duty by fancied religious obligation, and a\ntrampling on natural rights in search of a spiritual object, wrongly\napprehended and wrongly pursued. The deliverances of Europe by\nMartel on the one hand, and Sobieski on the other, from subjection\nto Mahomedan rule, although they effected so signal a rescue for the\nfaith, derived their justification, as political events, not from the\nfact that the oppressive power was Mahomedan, but from the simple fact\nthat it was an oppressive power.\n\nThe anomalous situation of the Pope, as being at once a claimant of\n\u0153cumenic supremacy and one of the temporal heads of Europe, has shown\nitself in the anomalous attitude which he has assumed towards the\nTurk. As long as he was true to his own principles he never consented\nto stand in diplomatic relations to the Porte. In assuming to act as\nthe sole spiritual and temporal head of all Christendom, he refused\nto acknowledge a heathen intruder into his supposed domain. But the\nwrong way in which he expressed this refusal was, by withholding,\nas a temporal sovereign, that diplomatic recognition to which the\nSultan, as another temporal sovereign, no longer at war with him, was\nentitled. And the recognition which he has lately given was the result,\nnot of true insight into the distinction between his own spiritual and\ntemporal characters, but of decaying zeal for God. His former motive\nwas a right one; but the conduct which it dictated was mistaken. With\nthe failure of the motive his conduct has changed. But his insight is\nnot improved.\n\nThe Christian nations of Europe, even those that acknowledge the\nsupremacy of the Pope, withheld their diplomatic recognition of Turkey,\nnot on purely religious grounds, but because Turkey remained, as it\nwere, habitually a politically inimical power. Gradually the enmity\nsubsided. And, in consequence, although the religious obligation, if\ntrue, remains in its full force, every Christian government now finds\nitself in diplomatic relations with the Porte, on the simple ground\nof secular parity among civilized nations, be they English, Russian,\nChinese, Persians, or Turks.\n\nYet while the political recognition of Turkey is right, there may be\nwrong grounds for doing a right thing\u2014a right thing may be overdone\u2014and\nthe diplomatic relations of a Christian with a heathen nation ought,\nfrom the nature of things, never to be so intimate as those with a\nChristian government. In these respects England does seem to have\nerred. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact, that the almost unbroken\namity of England with Turkey has arisen from our commercial and\nterritorial jealousy of other powers\u2014that self-interest has reconciled\nus to intimate contact with those who count all Christians \u201cdogs\u201d\u2014and\nthat to talk continually of \u201cour good friend and staunch ally, the\nTurk,\u201d argues either a blunting of our spiritual aversion to a\nblasphemous form of Paganism, or a lulling of conscience for mammon\u2019s\nsake. Nor is it an uninstructive example of the truth, that brethren at\nstrife are the most irreconcileable of all men (Prov. xviii. 10); that\nthe same nation which shrinks with sacred horror and blind alarm from\ndiplomatic relations with Rome, (not on the ground that Rome should\nnot be, or is not, an European state, but on the ground that the head\nof that state is at the same time usurping a false spiritual place,)\nshould, without any qualm of conscience, give the hand of political\nbrotherhood to a government, the whole code of which is based upon the\nwords of an impostor who has superseded Christ. At the same time we\ncannot accuse England of securing the favour of Turkey at the expense\nof the Christians who are subjected to Mahomedan rule. There never\nwas a more unjust reproach than that raised by certain religionists\nagainst England, that she appears at the court of the Sultan as a\nChristian power taking the side of the oppressor against his Christian\nsubjects. Navarino is a witness to the reverse.\n\nBe the cause of the Greek nation good or bad, none have been its warmer\nor more sincere supporters than the English. So powerful an element in\nour motives for the support of Greece, was the desire to emancipate\nChristianity from a Mahomedan yoke, that, in order to attain this end,\nEngland ran the risk of weakening, by the emancipation of Greece, the\nbulwark which she found in Turkey against the advances of Russia. And\nfor a long series of years no part of the policy of England has been\nmore unvarying than her resolution, expressed by deeds, to employ her\njust influence at the Porte in the most unwearied and enlightened\ndisinterestedness, by embracing\u2014often at great sacrifices and risks,\nand with singular success\u2014every opportunity to plead the cause of the\nChristian population in the East, although belonging to a different\nsection of the Church from her own. In this respect she may well bear\ncomparison with any other power, especially with one which, although it\nseeks to Wind the pious by vaunting itself the protector of Oriental\nChristianity, has done little or nothing for the co-religionists of its\nown subjects, save to entice them, through a proposed ecclesiastical\nunion, into a political subjugation which they abhor.\n\nBut this leads us to speak of Russia, the new protector of Oriental\nChristians. If the other European governments had in due time,\neither independently or in concert with England, lifted as constant\nand sincere a protest as hers at the court of Turkey against the\nwrongs of these Christians, and had required with one voice that\nthe government should administer its laws impartially to all its\nsubjects, irrespective of their creed, we might have heard less of this\nnew protectorate, and should, by an act of justice and mercy, have\nforeclosed the present flimsy pretexts of Russia. But the weakness of\nChristian zeal, our indifference between Christ and Belial, and the\nabsence of Christian concord, have prevented this. And by our \u201cl\u00e2ches\u201d\nwe have furnished the pretexts against which we now exclaim. But let\nus consider for a moment who the helper and helped are. Even granting\nthat the professions of Russia were true in the letter, there is surely\nno one so blindly charitable as to believe that, however sincere the\nill-informed masses in Russia may be in the fanatical excitement to\nwhich they have been goaded, the Czar or his advisers have either\ntears of compassion on their eyelids or indignation in their hearts, at\nthe wrongs of Oriental Christians. Without entering into the maze of\ndiplomacy, or attempting to interpret treaties intentionally Delphic,\nit may suffice to observe, that the general plea now urged by Russia\nformed no part of her original demands, but was resorted to lest those\nshould be satisfied. The Czar has two characters. He is, in the first\nplace, the spiritual head of the Russian Church. But he is not, and\nknows that he is not, the spiritual head of the whole Greek Church;\nstill less of the Armenians, Nestorians, or any other Oriental body of\nChristians; and least of all of those united to Rome. Each Oriental\nChurch has its own proper patriarch or other supreme head. And the\nCzar has no more right, on any religious ground, to throw down the\ngauntlet as the champion of those other Churches, than the Pope, or the\nArchbishop of Canterbury. That they are neither Romanist nor Protestant\nis no ground, provided they are not Russian. That their faith or rites\nare more akin to, nay, even identical with his own, is no ground. He\nhas no authority, human or divine, for taking such: a place as the\nuniversal champion of the East. He never pretends that members of the\nRussian Church are among the persecuted, save a few pilgrims; yet he\ndoes not limit his care to these. He is, indeed, in the second place,\nthe Autocrat of all the Russias. But there is no pretence that any part\nof his dominions has been seized or invaded. Therefore, neither as\ntemporal nor as spiritual head has he a vestige of claim to interfere\nindividually, on the abstract ground of right. All that he could do\nwould be to unite with other Christian powers in representations to\nthe Porte. To the necessity of making these, the other Christian\npowers are now awakened; too late, indeed, to prevent the solitary\naggressions of Russia, but assuredly not too late to bring out the\nutter groundlessness of her pretensions.\n\nIt has always been the artful endeavour of the Czar to place his\nopponents at a disadvantage, by bringing them at each step into\na position in which they shall appear aggressors. He crosses the\nPruth, professing not to declare war thereby, but merely to take a\nprecautionary pledge for the fulfilment of treaties. And because Turkey\njustly regarded his act as a declaration of war, he calls Turkey the\naggressor. He insists on fighting out with Turkey alone a quarrel in\nwhich all European powers have, by his acts, become interested. And\nbecause they act on this conviction, he calls them aggressors for\ninterfering in a private quarrel. He has forced the fleets of Europe\nto occupy the Euxine, as he the Proviuces. And, after seeing them where\nthey would not be if neutral, and being told how far their defence\nof the weaker part would go, he seeks by the question of a simpleton\nto throw on us the stigma of being the first to declare war. But the\ncloven foot has been unmistakeably revealed, by his rejection of the\nproposal of the Four Powers to insist on and obtain a protectorate for\nall Christians under Turkish sway. And, in assigning, as the ground of\nthat rejection, that he will not suffer any interference with his sole\nright of protection, he virtually arrogates to himself a right which\nthey who are its objects disallow, which no treaty ever did or could\nconfer upon him, and which the other powers of Europe cannot permit\nhim to plead. In fact, his claim of protectorate would cover almost\nevery class but the only one of which he is protector. He cannot be\nclaiming from Turkey a right to protect the Russian Church. That right\nis not interfered with by Turkey, or any one else. And, of those whom\nhe does claim to protect, every class, however hostile to Turkey,\nwould infinitely prefer the rule of Turkey, mollified by Christian\ndiplomacy, to the temporal rule of the Czar. To this last his religious\nprotectorate would infallibly lead. For, if the two characters of\nspiritual and temporal head are inseparable in his person in Russia,\nwho shall separate them in Turkey, whenever he has the power to exhibit\nboth? Moreover, why rest in the mere protectorate of Christians? What\nif the Jew also should become an object of pity to the Czar, and he\nshould extort Syria from the Turk for the Jew, who has certainly a\nbetter claim to Palestine than the Greek to Turkey?\n\nIt may, however, be argued, that all speculations as to abstract rights\nare superseded by treaties, the terms of which must be kept, and by\nwhich Turkey and other powers have recognised the right of Russia to\ninsist in such as her present demands, and to occupy the Provinces as\nshe does.\n\nTo this it must be replied, that one of the very questions at issue\nis whether such compacts as those alleged exist, whether they are\ncapable of the interpretation put upon them by Russia, and whether\nthey justify the occupation of the Provinces? As to the latter, Russia\npleads the precedent of her previous occupation, unquestioned by the\nEuropean powers. But, instead of justifying the one by the other, we\nshould rather deny the justice of both. On the former occasion the\ncause of Russia may have been good. But the goodness of the motive can\nnever legalise an illegal act. The former occupation should not have\nbeen allowed. By not being awake, we let in the wedge, and we are now\nsuffering the penalty of having listened to the dangerous doctrine\nthat the end sanctifies the means. Let us disown so bad a precedent.\nThe thing which Russia seeks to do is, single-handed, to extort from\nTurkey pledges, or the fulfilment of alleged pledges, as to her own\ninternal administration, the giving or fulfilling of which would be a\nsurrender of her national integrity, in order virtually, though not\nyet nominally, to use her as a province and thoroughfare. This must\nnot be. If the administration of Turkey becomes a public nuisance, it\nmust be abated by the public verdict of nations; but it may not be\ncorrected by a single nation which, while it has no peculiar right to\ninterfere, has a peculiar interest in spoiling the offender. If Russia\nhas already injured Turkey, and stolen a march on Europe by treaty, now\nis the time, when the operation of treaties is suspended, to see that\nthe evil is not repeated or prolonged, but repaired. And if, having\nnot yet done it, she now attempts it, every lover of fair play must\nforbid her. Let us not forget, while treaties are talked of (and, in\nso far as advantageous, so religiously asserted), that the position of\nTurkey in Europe has the sanction of treaties without number, framed\nnot in ignorance of what she was, but knowing it well. If the nations\nof Europe had persisted in refusing to acknowledge such an intrusive\nand persecuting power, and had provided, as the first condition of\nconceding to it, by diplomatic recognition, a place in the European\ncommonwealth, that it should afford to its Christian subjects the same\nadvantages as they should have enjoyed under Christian rule, or at\nleast that it should administer equal laws to Christians and Turks,\nthe case would now be widely different. But it was not so. Europe took\nTurkey as she found it. And whatever immunities have since been granted\nby Turkey to Christians, these have in so far been acts of free grace,\nthat they were no original conditions of the entrance of Turkey into\nthe European federation. In short, it is far too late to put Turkey on\nher trial as a candidate for her place. It was never said to the Turk,\nWe shall take proof of you for a century or two by your conduct, before\nwe admit you. He has, on all secular grounds of public law, as good a\nright to his place as we have to ours. We may, indeed, be bound by no\ntreaty to maintain Turkey, but we are bound by justice to see that it\nis fairly dealt with. At all events, let us do one thing or the other.\nAbolish Turkey with one consent, if you will, provided you know what\nnext to do. But if you deem its abolition undeserved, if you cannot\nput Greece in its place, or agree how to divide the spoil, defend it\nfrom all thieves and robbers in the meantime. Here justice and interest\nare at one.\n\nWe may regret that the Turk is there; but we dare not turn him out by\nthe shoulder in our indignation. We must wait till that Higher Power\nwhich sent him shall withdraw him.\n\nNo European confederacy, then, still less any single nation, can force\nTurkey out of Europe by resolving to impose new conditions on it, which\nit will not, or cannot accept. Yet we do not counsel the folding of the\narms in a resignation which borders on fatalism. It may come to pass\nthat Turkey, like any other nation, may so change for the worse its\noriginal character, and may so sin against that common law of nations\nwhich is more sacred than any statute or treaty, that, as madmen are\nput by their neighbours in a strait waistcoat, and they who offend\nagainst society are sent to Coventry, Turkey may provoke surrounding\nGovernments to vote it out of Europe.[1] \u201cNecessity has no law.\u201d But\nhas Turkey so acted? On the contrary, however far its conduct towards\nChristians in the East may fall short of that ideal standard by which\nRussia now takes a fancy to measure it, has there not been for a long\ntime, with occasional exceptions, a marked and steadily progressive\nimprovement in the exercise of its now declining government, as regards\nthem? It would need some sudden and flagrant excess to justify the\narming of Europe against it, still more to warrant the zeal of such a\nsolitary champion as the Czar.\n\nBut is there no other power which threatens to become, rather\nthan Turkey, a public offender? Are the instinctive and constant\napprehensions of all Europe on the side of Russia pure hallucinations?\nAre they not so strong as to survive every fresh apprehension from\nFrance? Is not every help which Russia has lent against revolutionary\nprinciples accepted with suspicion, as insincere; with a grudge, as\ndearly bought; with dread, as dangerous to European liberty? Whatever\nties may bind the court of Russia to others, is it not notorious that\nthe hatred of the whole German people to Russia is such, that no German\nmonarch dare tax the loyalty or the pockets of his people in behalf of\nRussia, and each may count upon both, against her?\n\nAre we so blinded by the spirit of selfish reaction, and so contracted\nby the spirit of party, as to see none but those proximate evils which\nthe brute can feel, to apprehend danger from nothing but rebellion, and\nto see wickedness in none but the radicals of Western Europe? Or are\nwe such devotees to the mere catchwords of Christianity, and so given\nup to believe the religious phrases which political craft takes up into\nits mouth, (in order to instigate its friends and paralyze its foes,)\nas to be blind to the realities of things, and deaf to the claims both\nof interest and of justice? Is our vision so filled with the Antichrist\nwho denies God, that we have no corner for him who confesses Him? Or\nhave we so pinned our faith to the Antichrist of Rome or republicanism\nthat we have no watchfulness left for the great Antichrist of the\nNorth, who has lifted his paw to appropriate the spiritual crown of\nChrist; whose name stands parallel with that of God in the hearts of\nhis serfs, and on the buildings of his realm; and who, at the time\ndictated by Scythian cunning, will mount his chariot, to drive like\na modern Jehu in his zeal for the Lord? Are we Englishmen prepared,\nafter contesting it with those who have paved the way into the East\nunder cloud of night, to look on when the journey is undertaken in\nbroad day? Are we prepared to hail the tyranny of the knout, and the\ntreachery of the bribe, as a blessed substitute for the Bash of the\nscimitar and the grasp of the spoiler? Are we who, when the fancy took\nus to be suspicious, could Hardly listen to the pacific assurances of\nFrance, ready to swallow any assurance from a government, which is\nthe impersonation of craft, and the tallowy unmoved countenance of\nwhich never yet betrayed its passions or projects? Do we believe that\nthose who bide their time in silence are less dangerous than those who\nanticipate it with bluster? Do we dream that Russia has become such an\nunwieldy mass, as to endanger us only by its fall? Or do we regard the\nhordes of the North, which have more than once overrun Europe in savage\ndisorder, as being incapable of doing so again in imperial order? If we\ndo, it is time that we thought otherwise.\n\nNow is the time. War is a sad calamity everywhere, and a shameful\nthing among Christian nations. Let us beware of being those to bring\nit recklessly on. But, if it must come, let us beware of avoiding it\nby ruin to ourselves or others. Russia has, by her own act, set us\nfree from our own former relations to her. Let us see to it that our\nnew relations be more secure. Let her not make the Black Sea a \u201cmare\nclausum.\u201d Let her not make the Baltic a \u201cmare clausum.\u201d Let her not\nmake the Danube a \u201cfluvium clausum,\u201d\u2014a European pipe with a Russian\nplug. Let her not make Bornholm a Russian arsenal, the Cattegat a\nRussian strait, Scandinavia a Russian province, Denmark a Russian\nlanding-place, or Persia a Russian highway. Rather let the Caucasus be\nsecured against future butchery, and Courland, Liefland, and Finland be\nrestored to their natural owners.\n\nMeantime, let none, who must not, meddle in the fray. But let none, who\nought, waver. Let them take the right side, and do it heartily; for\nwhile decision saves blood, indecision may forfeit all. We may push\nneutrality into self-contradiction. And while we strike at a distance,\nlet us not lay ourselves bare at home. There are such things as\npolitical feints. Moreover, if Austria, through poverty or gratitude,\nor Prussia, through family ties, shall be won or neutralized by Russia,\nlet them remember that they do it at the almost certain risk of\nintestine rebellion, and of being despoiled in Italy and on the Rhine\nby foreign conquest.\n\nThough we believe in the sure word of prophecy, we must beware of its\nprivate or premature interpretation. And while we ought not, on the one\nhand, to be paralysed in doing our duty by prophetic anticipations,\nneither dare we, on the other, excite ourselves to any breach of duty\nby a desire to see these realized. God will remove all oppressive\npowers which stand in His way. But there are wicked powers enough\nin the earth to do His work of judgment, whether on His Church or\non her enemies. We may not be our own saviours. We may not arise,\nin self-will, to carry out God\u2019s counsels. It is our part to expect\nHis salvation in the way of strict duty. Men may speculate about the\ndrying up of the Euphrates and the restoration of the Jews to their\nland, as they please. We shall best commend ourselves to God, not by\nskilful calculations as to the rate at which or the manner in which\nthe chariot of His Church, as the mystery of His Coming Kingdom, rolls\nalong the highways of His providence, but rather by ourselves abiding\nin the chariot, and trusting to the goodness of its Guide. And the sole\ntrue foundation on which we can build up the nobler superstructure\nof holiness, is scrupulous righteousness between nation and nation,\nbetween man and man. He only that has clean hands shall prosper in his\ndeed.\n\nOne word more: The votaries of reaction insist that Turkey shall be\nblotted out as the gathering-place of all revolutionary spirits. But\nwhy is it so? Not because the policy of Turkey is revolutionary, but\nbecause he who has been the fulcrum of reaction has, by declaring\nwar against Turkey, opened Turkey for them as a door by which they\ncan attack him, and has justified Turkey in using them. Bad, nay\nblasphemous, as revolutionists may be, he who would hunt them out\nof the earth, must have an unclean conscience himself. He must feel\nthat he has not been the Shepherd of his people, and that he has more\ncoveted the fleece than loved the flock.\n\n[1] See last paragraph, page 31.\n\nLondon:\u2014Printed by G. Barclay, Castle St. Leicester Sq.","title":"Shall Turkey Live or Die?","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":6657}