It is true that the Ottoman government has frequently refused permission to the Christians to erect or repair churches, etc. This, however, is not from a spirit of intolerance, for it soon was understood that a liberal sum might be obtained for these privileges, and the officials could not resist such occasions for increasing their revenues. The same advantage is taken of the party intrigues, at the time of the election of the new patriarchs of the Armenians and Greeks. In the days of ignorance, this election cost the Armenians 40,000 piasters, but years of experience have raised the value of the Sultan's sanction to 200,000 piasters, and the Greeks, amongst whom party strife is far greater, pay between two and three millions for the installation of their spiritual head. Hence it is evident that religious toleration is a principle of the government, and the contrary an incidental abuse for the advantage of those in power. This very abuse has had its origin among the Christians themselves, who were ready to bribe the ruling power to any amount, in order to gain their own ends. Nevertheless, Russia has endeavored to mislead the whole world, and especially the Christian population of Turkey, with the plausible pretence of a "Guarantee of Liberty of Worship to all classes of Christians in Turkey;" while her conduct at home belies her sincerity. The cross upon the Armenian church at Odessa was, not long ago, removed by order of the government, lest the population should be misled by the impression that the edifice belonged to the established church. And in the case of intermarriage, the law orders that the children should invariably be educated in the Russian faith. The adage "nearer the church, farther from God," is peculiarly applicable to Russia; for we are told by Gibbon, that long before the Turks were in Constantinople, the Russians made several attempts to capture this fated city, and were only driven away by the flood discharged from the batteries. Were the Greeks of that time Mohammedans, or was there any suffering Christianity, that these philanthropic Muscovites were impelled to come to the rescue of the Christian faith? There are some strange records in history which conflict materially with political hypocrisy! The fact is, under the pretence of being the champion of the Cross, the real object of Russia has ever been to avail herself of the existing religious fanaticism of the East, and by fanning the flames of Christian ardor, to institute a crusade of the nineteenth century! Nations are not, however, governed by sympathy, but by interest, and the Christians have had too bitter experience of Russian protection to be again caught in the same net.