It is important that the views of the Turkish government on this subject
should be put on record among our own state papers, that the religious
community in the United States may understand to what extent the free
exercise and teaching of Christianity is allowed in the dominions of the
Sultan, and to what restrictions it is subjected. As the American
missionaries in Turkey have never made themselves amenable to any of the
accusations of this note, it is unnecessary for me to repel them on
their part.
In despatch No. 96 I mentioned that the government of the Sultan had
appointed
[Page 281]
Haidar Effendi as
special envoy to the government of the Emperor Maximilian, to
reciprocate the complimentary mission of Martinez del Rio. It now
appears that no minister will be accredited by the Porte, in any
capacity, to Mexico.
The inauguration of President Lincoln for a second term has been to me,
on the part of the minister of foreign affairs, the Grand Vizier, and
other members of the imperial cabinet, a subject of the most cordial and
friendly congratulation. His re-election is regarded by them as a just
reward for the eminent services he has rendered, not only his own
country but the world at large, in maintaining the integrity of the
American Union and in promoting the progress of human liberty.
Notwithstanding the burdens of debt and taxation, I find no one doubting
our ability to discharge or sustain them, whilst our power and influence
as a nation have been vastly increased by the formidable array of fleets
and armies created by the war, and the science, skill and valor of our
military and naval forces.
[Translation.]
His Highness Ali Pacha, minister of foreign
affairs, to his excellency M. Musurus, ambassador of his
Imperial Majesty the Sultan, at London.
Sublime Porte,
November 30, 1865.
Mr. Ambassador: I have received the two
despatches addressed to me by your excellency on the 27th October
and 3d of November last, together with the account of the interview
held by Lord Russell with a deputation of the Evangelical
Alliance.
My former communications have made you acquainted with the conduct of
certain Protestant missionaries and the measures which the Sublime
Porte was obliged to adopt. I now propose more particularly to enter
upon the questions raised by the discussions which those measures
have occasioned in England, and I feel sure that the same just and
liberal appreciation, joined to the conciliatory spirit which I have
been pleased to find in the language of the principal secretary of
state of her Britannic Majesty, will aid us in dispelling all doubts
and in annihilating all calumnies. It is, therefore, with unlimited
confidence in the equity and friendly disposition of her Britannic
Majesty’s cabinet, and in the tried justice of the English nation,
that I submit the following explanations to the enlightened judgment
of his lordship:
The imperial government has established by the Hotti Humayun (Royal
Rescript) of 1856 the free exercise of all forms of worship existing
in the empire. The scrupulous accomplishment of this promise has
been the more easy since the diversity of religious elements united
under its protection imposed upon it the obligation to watch
indiscriminately over the safety of all religious interests, and to
guarantee each creed against the aggression of the other, by giving
to all an entire liberty in their legitimate manifestations.
The Sublime Porte has acted in this spirit with the greatest
sincerity. Not only has it recognized the jurisdiction and spiritual
hieraichy of the different non-Mussulman creeds, but it has admitted
them all to the same honors enjoyed by the established religion, and
has spontaneously conceded to them equal prerogatives. Every one is
now free to profess his own religion, and to follow his own form of
worship. No law forbids religious communities of all the Christian
rights to enter Turkey; their members are not subject to any
restraints in the exercise of their spiritual ceremonies; all
religious creeds erect their places of worship there, and enjoy full
liberty, even in their outward forms and in their public ceremonies;
and the sacred books of all religions are printed and published in
different parts of the empire.
We can, therefore, affirm that Christians of all sects and Israelites
enjoy in Turkey rights which they would be happy to possess in most
Christian countries in Europe. It would be useless to enumerate the
restrictions imposed on liberty of conscience in other countries,
perhaps, without even excepting England itself, which in this
respect is one of the most liberal nations, but whose legislature
still preserves some restrictions of this kind. Among these, it will
be sufficient to cite the severe penalties prescribed by a law in
the reign of William III, for those who, by speaking, teaching, or
writing, deny the truth of the Christian religion and the divine
authority of the Holy Scriptures.
I do not contest that these restrictive enactments are in part
modified in practice; but it is not the less true that the British
legislature has recognized their necessity. In making these
[Page 282]
observations I have no
other intention whatever than that of requesting a little more
indulgence towards us. If, indeed, the British government, which is
at the head of civilization, feels itself obliged in many cases to
take account of the religious influence of a party, would it not be
equitable to acknowledge that the Sublime Porte, also, could not but
take into account the sentiments of her populations, and, above all,
could not but seek to defend her religion within the limits of
moderation and of justice against interested attacks?
The imperial government which has not admitted the free exercise of
proselytism in favor of the religion of the state cannot admit it in
opposition to that religion. The principle of religious, toleration
cannot, in our view, be reconciled with open aggression against any
religion whatever.
Lord Russell has stated repeatedly in his speech the difficulties
which arise in the application of the principle which is in
question. His lordship declares that he cannot form a conception of
the liberty of religious creeds without the freedom of recording in
the ardor of conviction the arguments through which those ends have
been adopted. The noble lord goes so far as to allow the attack in a
private manner of a religion which is considered erroneous, but he
sees offence in the act of publicly attacking and reproaching the
religion.
Doubtless the liberty of opinion leads to that of wedding it;
nevertheless, we believe that it is forbidden to employ other
methods than that of persuasion. So far this mode of making known
religious convictions is, we consider, justified on the principle of
liberty of opinion. But his lordship, who condemns the aggression of
religious convictions when they are made in broad daylight, will not
dispute that there is a great step between a spontaneous and
tolerant manifestation of convictions and a systematic propagandism,
which makes use of powerful means, and acts with the settled purpose
of effecting the subversion of other religions, which draws all its
energy from the intolerance and the hatred of those religions, which
speculates not only on the ignorance of the masses and the weakness
of faith, but even upon political views, and, above all, upon
motives of interest, which insults and reproaches instead of
respecting the fears of others, and fears not to have recourse to
corruption when it cannot obtain by persuasion. It would be vain to
affect in practice all the considerations which the missionaries
have too much neglected. Such a system would be none the less the
contradiction of the principle of religious liberty, for by its very
existence it attacks that liberty in others, and that respect for
the conviction of others, without which religious tolerance would be
but an empty form.
I do not think it necessary, sir, to insist upon the political
consequences of this system. Lord Russell has established the
necessity which presses upon every power to insure respect for
itself and for the established religion of the country; and his
lordship will not dispute the gravity which religious propagandism
acquires, particularly from circumstances in Turkey, and the
circumspection which the imperial government must use in all those
questions which are of a nature to raise religious passions and to
arm one race against another. The government of her Britannic
Majesty, which has not forgotten either the religious disorders
which have by turn covered every part of Europe with blood, nor the
reserve which it has itself imposed upon Protestant missionaries in
India, will willingly appreciate the respect due to the creed of a
whole population, and the danger which would result from estranging
it.
No European government, moreover, has sanctioned the principle of
religious propagandism in England, in Prussia, and in Austria.
Everywhere propagandism is subjected to the supervision of the
authorities. The most liberal and the most tolerant governments have
reserved to themselves the power to condemn it whenever it
threatened public security and the interests of the religion of the
state; and democratic Greece has just inscribed at the head of her
constitution the prohibition of proselytism and of any other
intervention contrary to the dominant religion.
But the missionaries, not content with accusing us of intolerance,
would wish further to impute a violation of enjoyments solemnly
contracted; they invoke in their favor the Haiti
Humayun, and strive to give to their enterprise the
sanction of legality. Now, the 6th article of the Hatti Humayun says, “Seeing that all creeds are and shall
be fully exercised in my dominions, no subject of my empire shall be
molested in the exercise of the religion which he professes, nor
shall be in any way disturbed in that respect. No one shall be
compelled to change his religion.”
It would be truly difficult to draw from this text, which is so
clear, an interpretation of a nature to justify the pretensions of
the missionaries. The government of his Majesty the Sultan has
spontaneously declared by the article I have just quoted that there
will be secured to each community the free exercise of its worship,
to each individual the power to profess and practice his religion
without impediment; nothing more. Every other interpretation would
lead to strange errors.
Can it be supposed that, whilst condemning religious persecutions,
the Sublime Porte has consented to permit offence and insult to any
creed whatever? That at the same time that she was proclaiming
liberty to all non-Mussulmen creeds, she had given them arms against
Islamism? That she had, in fine, destroyed at the same stroke the
guarantees with which she surrounded the liberty of religious
conviction? No one could for a moment insist on so unfounded an
hypothesis without insulting the good sense of the Sublime Porte,
and misapprehending the tact of the eminent diplomatist who pleaded
with her the cause of liberty of conscience. But if the least doubt
could be raised as to the spirit of the Hatti Humayun,
[Page 283]
he acts of the government
of her Majesty the Queen would be sufficient to dissipate them. Your
excellency is not unaware that an order in council of the Queen,
addressed to the British embassy at the time of the formation of the
high consular court, punishes with fine and even with hard labor
every subject of the Queen who should render himself guilty of
turning into derision or publicly insulting any religion established
and professed in Turkey, or who should voluntarily commit any act
tending to draw upon such religion or upon its ceremonies, upon its
worship, or its practices, hatred, ridicule, or contempt.
If the imperial government, moved by a spirit of moderation—for which
public opinion in England will assuredly give her credit—has
tolerated the establishment of missionaries in Turkey, it could
hardly recognize in any organized body the right of exercising a
propagandism which the most civilized governments reject, which
reason, the spirit and the letter of the Hatti Humayun, and the
general interests of the empire equally repudiate. It could not
sacrifice to the zeal of certain foreign missionaries the
tranquillity of the empire. No one disputes the right of the
missionaries to express, by the same title as every other person,
their religious opinions with the respect due to those of others;
but in every case where this expression assumes a character of
publicity calculated to give rise to scandal to a part of the
population, to wound the public conscience, and to disturb the
tranquillity of the country, the imperial government is compelled to
reserve to itself the right to act in conformity with the existing
laws and public interests, which it is bound to protect.
It was my desire, sir, to expose without concealment our opinion upon
a question which we grieved to see obscured by inexact or interested
allegations, and to define the limits within which we think it right
to reserve our action,
As I attach a high value to public opinion in England, I think it my
duty to request you to make known to his excellency Lord Russell the
foregoing observations, in order that his lordship may be in a
position, when necessary, to cause their justice to be recognized,
and in order that the British nation, after having heard both
parties, should not allow itself to be influenced by gratuitous and
unjust recriminations.
I think it my duty to add, in conclusion, that the free sale and
circulation of the Bible continues, and will always continue, to be
authorized by the empire.
