Page:The Greek and Eastern churches.djvu/603

Rh The sequel to Heraclius's magnificent feat in hurling back the Persians from Egypt and Syria and re-establishing the crumbling power of the Byzantine Empire is one of the greatest disappointments in history. For the moment it looked as though the glorious days of Constantine or Theodosius were returning. Then rose the thunder-cloud from the Arabian desert, and the hosts of Islam swept over province after province, till at length, after centuries of Titanic wrestling, the remnant of the Roman Empire in the East was finally subdued, and the Crescent gleamed on the central dome of St. Sophia, there to remain till the present day.

Now we have to see the relation of this triumphant march of Islam in its early days to the Copts and their Church. Mohammed never entered Egypt. The prophet died in the year 632. It was seven years later that the Moslems invaded Egypt. Omar was then caliph. A letter he had despatched to Amr', who was on the way to Egypt, recalling the general to Medina, had reached its destination, but Amr' did not open it, and marched on in spite of what he suspected to be its orders. His subsequent victories condoned the act of insubordination. There can be no doubt that these victories were won partly by aid rendered in Egypt itself. But there is some confusion in reference to the source and manner of this assistance. It has been attributed to the Copts. If that were correct, we could hardly regard them as traitors, since they were already the subjects of a foreign master in the Byzantine emperor, who represented the alien Church that had appropriated their ecclesiastical property. It was but a question of a change of masters. Still, the Byzantine Empire, though viewed by the Copts as heretical in its acceptance of the decrees of Chalcedon, was a Christian power, and the admission of the Moslem conqueror was an encouragement to Islam as a rival religion which threatened to stamp out the faith of Christ. The persecution of Christians by their fellow-Christians is never more convincingly futile as a defence of the faith than when it