and the grandfather bowing." There is no part of the world where idolatry is so gross and beastly as in Hindustan; and the Mahometans were enlightened and bold reformers, on taking possession of that country, when they destroyed or desecrated the temples, and broke to pieces the idols. One of the most pointed and cutting reproofs of the British rulers, for the opposite course pursued by them, came from a Hindu idolater, at Juggernath, in the following question put to one of the missionaries then present:—“ Sir, I wish to ask you one question. Does your Government give every year a large sum of money to carry on the worship of Juggernath, or not? If so, it is useless to deny that your Government acknowledge Juggernath to be God. Why, then, is it, that you are speaking against him?" The missionary wrote,"What could I reply to this? I said, 'I am ashamed to confess it is true." "+ The idolatry of the Asiatic races differed as much from the Teutonic and the Scandinavian, as did the nature of the people in their physical and mental constitution. The latter had their subjective and objective qualities pretty fairly balanced, and their very adoption of Christianity through the war cross, in one sense showed a thoughtful and resolute people. The Asiatics, especially the Hindus, have their objective qualities in excess, and they receive impressions passively, and without reflection. There are four great divisions, into which the natives of Asia may be ranked here, to suit our purpose, without including that singular people, the Chinese. The first, the *"Arthur's Mission to the Mysore," p. 146. Fifty-sixth Annual Report of the London Missionary Society, 1850. Arabians; the second, the Persians; the third, the Tartars, or equestrian tribes of Central Asia; and the fourth, the Hindus between the Indus and the Ganges. We cannot learn from the relation of the historians of the wars of Constantine, and other invaders of the heathen people of Asia, what impression was made and left by the standard of the cross. We cannot even learn from the pages of general history, what description of banners and ensigns are used by nations in their wars with each other. In these speculations we must be guided, therefore, by the known properties of human nature; and, in our reasonings, follow out the feelings and propensities of man, in all ages and in all his conditions. We may reason in this manner, in order to reach the issue of war under the cross. The inhabitants of certain countries and islands are invaded by the armed hosts of a people, or nation, who display in their ranks of battle a symbol, said to be that of their religion; and those inhabitants have their fields desolated, their cattle stolen, their villages, towns, and cities taken, and perhaps pillaged; their houses, with their hearths, or shady verandahs destroyed; and they suffer all the crosses, miseries, and deaths of a people given over to the sword, dirk, and bayonet of a foreign enemy. Is it in human nature for a people so attacked and dealt with, to regard the ensign with any other feelings than fear, detestation, and horror? And afterwards, when the priests and missionaries come from the conquering nation to offer the religion of the cross to the inhabitants who survive the conquest, may it not be expected that those sufferers will turn away with indifference and disdain from an offer, which must appear like an insult to captives in their bondage, or must stand out in hypocritical contrast between the cross, as the ensign of invasion, war, and blood, and as the type of man's salvation? It must be remembered that tribes and races in a primitive social condition, bequeath to their posterity their feelings, antipathies, and revenges, and the children hold with tenacity the strong passions and prejudices of their parents. From these considerations we may infer, that the British present military attacks and aggressions under the banners of the cross, on the tribes of the banks of the Indus, of Affghanistan, of the Punjaub, of Burmah, and on the tribes of Caffraria, will throw back, for an indefinite time, the progress of Christianity among the inhabitants of those countries. Summary of the Objects which the Material Cross represents, and the various Meanings which it expresses. FIRST. It was an instrument of torture and death, and became therefrom the symbol of cruelty. SECOND. It was in the figure of the TAU an object of idolatry, and in the Roman church it is adored. THIRD. It is an article of merchandise disposed of by the priest; and in the bull of the Cruzados, for the sale of papal indulgences in various countries of Europe and America, it forms an important item of public revenue. FOURTH.-In its adoption as a standard in war, nations have thus the choice of three objects, of which it may be the symbol. 345 THE PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE AT JERUSALEM AND THE HOLY PLACES CONCLUSION. THE following declaration of war was promulgated by the Sovereign of Great Britain and Ireland against the Emperor of Russia on the 28th of March, 1854: "is with deep regret that Her Majesty announces the failure of her anxious and protracted endeavours to preserve for her people and for Europe the blessings of peace. The unprovoked aggression of the Emperor of Russia against the Sublime Porte has been persisted in with such disregard of consequences, that, after the rejection by the Emperor of Russia of terms which the Emperor of Austria, the Emperor of the French, and the King of Prussia, as well as Her Majesty, considered just and equitable, Her Majesty is compelled by a sense of what is due to the honour of her Crown, to the interests of her people, and to the independence of the States of Europe, to come forward in defence of an ally whose territory is invaded, and whose dignity and independence are assailed. "Her Majesty, in justification of the course she is about to pursue, refers to the transactions in which Her Majesty has been engaged. "The Emperor of Russia had some causes of complaint against the Sultan with reference to the settlement, which his Highness had sanctioned, of the conflicting claims of the Greek and Latin churches to a portion of the Holy Places of Jerusalem, and its neighbourhood. To the complaint of the Emperor of Russia on this head justice was done, and Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople had the satisfaction of promoting an arrangement to which no exception was taken by the Russian Government. "But, while the Russian Government repeatedly assured the Government of Her Majesty that the mission of Prince Menschikoff to Constantinople was exclusively directed to the settlement of the question of the Holy Places at Jerusalem, Prince Menschikoff himself pressed upon the Porte other demands of a far more serious and important character, the nature of which he, in the first instance, endeavoured, as far as possible, to conceal from Her Majesty's Ambassador. And these demands, thus studiously concealed, affected, not the privileges of the Greek church at Jerusalem, but the position of many millions of Turkish subjects in their relations to their sovereign the Sultan. These demands were rejected by the spontaneous decision of the Sublime Porte. "Two assurances had been given to Her Majesty,one, that the mission of Prince Menschikoff only regarded the Holy Places; the other, that his mission. would be of a conciliatory character. In both respects Her Majesty's just expectations were disappointed. |