xxiii. 42) describes the turbans of the Sabean or Keturite Arabs under

the very appellation here used by John: “Sabeans from the wilderness, which put beautiful _crowns_ upon their heads.” So in the preface to _Antar_, it is said, “It was a usual saying among them, that God had bestowed four peculiar things on the Arabs; that their _turbans_ should be unto them instead of _diadems_, their tents instead of walls and houses, their swords instead of intrenchments, and their poems instead of written laws.” Mr. Forster, in his _Mohammedanism Unveiled_, quotes as a precept of Mahomet: “Make a point of wearing _turbans_, because it is the way of angels.” Turbans might then with propriety be represented as crowns, and no doubt these were often so gilded and ornamented that they might be spoken of as “crowns _of gold_.” ¶ _They had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron._ See Notes on ver. 9. As a _symbol_, this would be properly descriptive of the Arabians or Saracens. In the poem _Antar_ the steel and iron cuirasses of the Arab warriors are frequently noticed: “A warrior immersed in _steel armour_,” vol. ii. p. 203. “Fifteen thousand men armed with cuirasses, and well accoutred for war,” vol. ii. p. 42. “They were clothed in iron armour, and brilliant cuirasses,” vol. i. p. 23. “Out of the dust appeared horsemen clad in iron,” vol. iii. p. 274. The same thing occurs in the Koran: “God hath given you coats of mail to defend you in your wars,” vol. ii. p. 104. In the history of Mahomet we read expressly of the cuirasses of himself and of his Arab troops. Seven cuirasses are noted in the list of Mahomet’s private armoury (Gagnier, vol. iii. p. 328‒334). In his second battle with the Koreish, seven hundred of his little army are spoken of by Mr. Gibbon as armed with cuirasses. See Elliott, vol. i. p. 413. These illustrations will show with what propriety the locusts in the symbol were represented as having breastplates like breastplates of iron. On the supposition that this referred to the Arabs and the Saracens this would have been the very symbol which would have been used. Indeed, all the features in the symbol are precisely such as _would_ properly be employed on the supposition that the reference was to them. It is true that beforehand it might not have been practicable to describe exactly what people were referred to, but (a) it would be easy to see that some fearful calamity was to be anticipated from the ravages of hosts of fearful invaders; and (b) when the events occurred, there would be no difficulty in determining to whom this application should be made.

(3) _The time when this would occur._ As to this there can be no difficulty in the application to the Saracens. On the supposition that the four first trumpets refer to the downfall of the Western empire, then the proper time supposed to be represented by this symbol is subsequent to that; and yet the manner in which the last three trumpets are introduced (ch. viii. 13) shows that there would be an _interval_ between the sounding of the last of the four trumpets and the sounding of the fifth. The events referred to, as I have supposed, as represented by the fourth trumpet, occurred in the close of the fifth century (A.D. 476‒490). The principal events in the seventh century were connected with the invasions and conquests of the Saracens. The interval of a century is not more than the fair {221} interpretation of the proclamation in ch. viii. 13 would justify.

(4) _The commission given to the symbolical locusts._ This embraces the following things:――(a) They were not to hurt the grass of the earth, nor any green thing; (b) they were especially to go against those who had not the seal of God in their foreheads; (c) they were not to _kill_ them, but were to _torment_ them. ¶ _They were not to hurt the grass of the earth_, &c. Notes, ver. 4. This agrees remarkably with an express command in the Koran. The often-quoted order of the Caliph Aboubekir, the father-in-law and successor of Mahomet, issued to the Saracen hordes on their invasion of Syria, shows what was understood to be the spirit of their religion: “Remember that you are always in the presence of God, on the verge of death, in the assurance of judgment, and the hope of paradise. Avoid injustice and oppression; consult with your brethren, and study to preserve the love and confidence of your troops. When you fight the battles of the Lord, acquit yourselves like men, without turning your backs; _but let not the victory be stained with the blood of women or children. Destroy no palm-trees, nor burn any fields of corn. Cut down no fruit-trees, nor do any mischief to cattle, only such as you kill to eat._ When you make any covenant or article, stand to it, and be as good as your word. As you go on, you will find some religious persons who live retired in monasteries, and propose to themselves to serve God in that way; let them alone, and _neither kill them_ [‘and to them it was given that they should not kill them,’ ver. 5], nor destroy their monasteries,” &c. (Gibbon, iii. 417, 418). So Mr. Gibbon notices this precept of the Koran: “In the siege of Tayaf,” says he, “sixty miles from Mecca, Mohammed violated _his own laws_ by the extirpation of the fruit-trees,” ii. 392. The same order existed among the Hebrews, and it is not improbable that Mahomet derived his precept from the command of Moses (De. xx. 19), though what was _mercy_ among the Hebrews was probably mere _policy_ with him. This precept is the more remarkable because it has been the usual custom in war, and particularly among barbarians and semi-barbarians, to destroy grain and fruit, and especially to cut down fruit-trees, in order to do greater injury to an enemy. Thus we have seen (Notes on ch.