viii. 13 three woes are mentioned which were to occur successively,

and which were to embrace the whole of the period comprised in the seven seals and the seven trumpets. Under the last of the seals we have considered four successive periods, referring to events connected with the downfall of the Western empire; and then we have found one important event worthy of a place in noticing the things which would permanently affect the destiny of the world――the rise, the character, and the conquests of the Saracens. This was referred to by the first _woe-trumpet_. We enter now on the consideration of the second. This occupies the remainder of the chapter, and in illustrating it the same method will be pursued as heretofore: first, to explain the literal meaning of the words, phrases, and symbols; and then to inquire what events in history, if any, succeeding the former, occurred, which would correspond with the language used. ¶ _|And|, behold, there come two woes more hereafter_. Two momentous and important events that will be attended with sorrow to mankind. It cannot be intended that there would be no _other_ evils that would visit mankind; but the eye, in glancing along the future, rested on these as having a special pre-eminence in affecting the destiny of the church and the world.

13 And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God,

13. _And the sixth angel sounded._ See Notes on ch. viii. 2, 7. ¶ _And I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God._ In the _language_ here used there is an allusion to the temple, but the scene is evidently laid in heaven. The temple in its arrangements was designed, undoubtedly, to be in important respects a symbol of heaven, and this idea constantly occurs in the Scriptures. Comp. the Epistle to the Hebrews _passim_. The golden altar stood in the holy place, between the table of show-bread and the golden candlestick. See Notes on He. ix. 1, 2. This altar, made of shittim or acacia wood, was ornamented at the four corners, and overlaid throughout with laminæ of gold. Hence it was called “the golden altar,” in contradistinction from the altar for sacrifice, which was made of stone. Comp. Notes on Mat. xxi. 12, seq. On its four corners it had projections which are called _horns_ (Ex. xxx. 2, 3), which seem to have been intended mainly for ornaments. See Jahn, _Arch._ § 332; Joseph. _Ant._ iii. 6, 8. When it is said that this was “before God,” the meaning is, that it was directly before or in front of the symbol of the divine presence in the most holy place. This image, in the vision of John, is transformed to heaven. The voice seemed to come from the very presence of the Deity; from the place where offerings are made to God.

14 Saying to the sixth angel, which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river [299]Euphrates.

14. _Saying to the sixth angel, which had the trumpet._ Notes, ch. viii. 2. ¶ _Loose_, &c. This power, it would seem, was given to the sixth angel in addition to his office of blowing the trumpet. All this, of course, was in vision, and cannot be literally interpreted. The meaning is, that the effect of his blowing the trumpet would be the same _as if_ angels that had been bound should be suddenly loosed and suffered to go forth over the earth; that is, some event would occur which would be properly symbolized by {226} such an act. ¶ _The four angels._ Comp. Notes, ch. viii. 2. It was customary to represent important events as occurring under the ministry of angels. The general meaning here is, that in the vicinity of the river Euphrates there were mighty powers which had been bound or held in check, which were now to be let loose upon the world. What we are to look for in the fulfilment is evidently this――some power that seemed to be kept back by an invisible influence as if by angels, now suddenly let loose and suffered to accomplish the purpose of desolation mentioned in the subsequent verses. It is not necessary to suppose that angels were actually employed in these restraints, though no one can demonstrate that their agency was _not_ concerned in the transactions here referred to. Comp. Notes on Da. x. 12, 13. It has been made a question why the number _four_ is specified, and whether the forces were in any sense made up of four divisions, nations, or people. While nothing certain can be determined in regard to that, and while the number four _may_ be used merely to denote a great and strong force, yet it must be admitted that the most obvious interpretation would be to refer it to some combination of forces, or to some union of powers, that was to accomplish what is here said. If it had been a single nation, it would have been more in accordance with the usual method in prophecy to have represented them as restrained by an angel, or by angels in general, without specifying any number. ¶ _Which are bound._ That is, they _seemed_ to be bound. There was something which held them, and the forces under them, in check, until they were thus commanded to go forth. In the fulfilment of this it will be necessary to look for something of the nature of a check or restraint on these forces, until they were commissioned to go forth to accomplish the work of destruction. ¶ _In the great river Euphrates._ The well-known river of that name, commonly called, in the Scriptures, “the great river,” and, by way of eminence, “_the_ river,” Ex. xxiii. 31; Is. viii. 7. This river was on the east of Palestine; and the language here used naturally denotes that the power referred to under the sixth trumpet would spring up in the East, and that it would have its origin in the vicinity of that river. Those interpreters, therefore, who apply this to the invasion of Judæa by the Romans have great difficulty in explaining this――as the forces employed in the destruction of Jerusalem came from the West, and not from the East. The fair interpretation is, that there were forces in the vicinity of the Euphrates which were, up to this period, bound or restrained, but which were now suffered to spread woe and sorrow over a considerable portion of the world.

15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared [300]for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to [301]slay the third part of men.

15. _And the four angels were loosed._ Who had this mighty host under restraint. The loosening of the angels was, in fact, also a letting loose of all these hosts, that they might accomplish the work which they were commissioned to do. ¶ _Which were prepared._ See ver. 7. The word here used properly refers to that which is made ready, fitted up, arranged for anything: as persons prepared for a journey, horses for battle, a road for travellers, food for the hungry, a house to live in, &c. See Rob. _Lex._, sub. voce Ἑτοιμάζω. As used here, the word means that whatever was necessary to _prepare_ these angels――the leaders of this host――for the work which they were commissioned to perform, was now done, and that they stood in a state of readiness to execute the design. In the fulfilment of this it will be necessary to look for some arrangements existing in the vicinity of the Euphrates, by which these restrained hosts were _in a state of readiness_ to be summoned forth to the execution of this work, or in such a condition that they _would_ go forth spontaneously if the restraints existing were removed. ¶ _For an hour_, &c. Marg., _at_. The Greek――εἰς――means properly _unto_, _with reference to_; and the sense is, that, with reference to that hour, they had all the requisite preparation. Professor Stuart explains it as meaning that they were “prepared for the particular year, month, day, and hour, destined by God for the great catastrophe which is to follow.” The meaning, however, rather seems to be that they were prepared, not for the _commencement_ of such a period, but they were prepared for _the whole period_ indicated by the hour, the day, the month, and the year; that is, {227} that the continuance of this “woe” would extend along through the whole period. For (a) this is the natural interpretation of the word “for”――εἰς; (b) it makes the whole sentence intelligible――for though it might be proper to say of anything that it was “prepared for an hour,” indicating the commencement of what was to be done, it is not usual to say of anything that it is “prepared for an hour, a month, a day, a year,” when the design is merely to indicate the _beginning_ of it; and (c) it is in accordance with the prediction respecting the first “woe” (ver. 5), where the time is specified in language similar to this, to wit, “five months.” It seems to me, therefore, that we are to regard the time here mentioned as a prophetic indication of the period during which this woe would continue. ¶ _An hour, and a day, and a month, and a year._ If this were to be taken literally, it would, of course, be but little more than a year. If it be taken, however, in the common prophetic style, where a day is put for a year (see Notes on Da. ix. 24, seq.; also Editor’s Preface, p. xxv. &c.), then the amount of time (360 + 30 + 1 + an hour) would be three hundred and ninety-one years, and the portion of a year indicated by an hour――a twelfth or twenty-fourth part, according as the day was supposed to be divided into twelve or twenty-four hours. That this is the true view seems to be clear, because this accords with the usual style in this book; because it can hardly be supposed that the “preparation” here referred to would have been for so brief a period as the time would be if literally interpreted; and because the mention of so small a portion of time as an “hour,” if literally taken, would be improbable in so great transactions. The fair interpretation, therefore, will require us to find some events that will fill up the period of about three hundred and ninety-one years. ¶ _For to slay the third part of men._ Comp. ch. viii. 7, 9, 12. The meaning here is, that the immense host which was restrained on the Euphrates would, when loosed, spread desolation over about a third part of the world. We are not to suppose that this is to be understood in exactly a literal sense; but the meaning is, that the desolation would be so widespread that it would seem to embrace a third of the world. No such event as the cutting off of a few thousands of Jews in the siege of Jerusalem would correspond with the language here employed, and we must look for events more general and more disastrous to mankind at large.

16 And the number of the [302]army of the horsemen _were_ [303]two hundred thousand thousand: and [304]I heard the number of them.

16. _And the number of the army of the horsemen._ It is to be observed here that the strength of the army seemed to be cavalry. In the former plagues there is no distinct mention of horsemen; but here that which struck the beholder was the immense and unparalleled number of horsemen. ¶ _|Were| two hundred thousand thousand._ A thousand thousand are a million, and consequently the number here referred to would be two hundred millions. This would be a larger army than was ever assembled, and it cannot be supposed that it is to be taken literally. That it would be a very large host――so large that it would not be readily numbered――is clear. The expression in the original, while it naturally conveys the idea of an immense number, would seem also to refer to some peculiarity in the manner of reckoning them. The language is, _two myriads of myriads_――δύο μυριάδες μυριάδων. The myriad was ten thousand. The idea would seem to be this. John saw an immense host of cavalry. They appeared to be divided into large bodies that were in some degree separate, and that might be reckoned by ten thousands. Of these different squadrons there were many, and to express their great and unusual numbers he said that there seemed to be _myriads_ of them――two myriads of myriads, or twice ten thousand myriads. The army thus would seem to be immense――an army, as we should say, to be reckoned _by tens of thousands_. ¶ _And I heard the number of them._ They were so numerous that he did not pretend to be able to estimate the number himself, for it was beyond his power of computation; but he heard it stated in these round numbers, that there were “two myriads of myriads” of them.

17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses _were_ as [305]the heads of lions: and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.

17. _And thus I saw the horses in the {228} vision_. That is, he saw them as he proceeds to describe them, for the word _thus_――οὕτως――refers to what follows. Comp. Rob. _Lex._ on the word, (b), and see Mat. i. 18; ii. 5; Jn. xxi. 1; He. iv. 4. Professor Stuart, however, refers to what precedes. The meaning, as it seems to me, is, that he fixed his attention on the appearance of the immense army――the horses and their riders, and proceeded to describe them as they struck him. ¶ _And them that sat on them._ He fixed the attention on horse and rider. Their appearance was unusual, and deserved a particular description. ¶ _Having breastplates of fire._ That is, those who sat on them had such breastplates. The word here rendered breastplate denoted properly a coat of mail that covered the body from the neck to the thighs. See Notes on Ep. vi. 14. This would be a prominent object in looking at a horseman. This was said to be composed of “fire, and jacinth, and brimstone;” that is, the part of the body usually incased in the coat of mail had these three colours. The word “fire” here simply denotes _red_. It was burnished and bright, and seemed to be a blaze of fire. The word “jacinth”――ὑακινθίνους――means hyacinthine. The colour denoted is that of the hyacinth――a flower of a deep purple or reddish blue. Then it refers to a gem of the same colour, nearly related to the _zircon_ of the mineralogists, and the colour here mentioned is deep purple or reddish blue. The word rendered “brimstone”――θειώδης――means properly sulphurous, that is, made of sulphur, and means here simply _yellow_. The meaning of the whole then is, that these horsemen appeared to be clad in a peculiar kind of armour――armour that shone like fire, mingled with blue and yellow. It will be necessary to look for the fulfilment of this in cavalry that was so caparisoned. ¶ _And the heads of the horses |were| as the heads of lions._ Resembled, in some respects, the heads of lions. He does not say that they _were_ the heads of lions, or that the riders were on monsters, but only that they, in some respects, _resembled_ the heads of lions. It would be easy to give this general appearance by the way in which the head-dress of the horses was arrayed. ¶ _And out of their mouths issued._ That is, _appeared_ to issue. It is not necessary to understand this as affirming that it actually came from their _mouths_, but only that, to one looking on such an approaching army, it would have this _appearance_. The heathen poets often speak of horses breathing out fire and smoke (Virg. _Geor._ vol. ii. p. 140; iii. 85; Ovid, _Met._ vol. vii. p. 104), meaning that their _breath_ seemed to be mingled smoke and fire. There is an image superadded here not found in any of the classic descriptions, that this was mingled with _brimstone_. All this _seemed_ to issue from their mouths――that is, it was breathed forth in front of the host, as if the horses emitted it from their mouths. ¶ _Fire and smoke and brimstone._ The _exact_ idea, whether that was intended or not, would be conveyed by the discharge of musketry or artillery. The fire, the smoke, and the sulphurous smell of such a discharge would correspond precisely with this language; and if it be supposed that the writer _meant_ to describe such a discharge, this would be the very language that would be used. Moreover, in describing a battle nothing would be more proper than to say that this _appeared_ to issue from the horses’ mouths. If, therefore, it should be found that there were any events where firearms were used, in contradistinction from the ancient mode of warfare, this _language_ would be appropriate to describe that; and if it were ascertained that the writer meant to refer to some such fact, then the language here used would be that which he would adopt. One thing is certain, that this is _not_ language which would be employed to describe the onset of ancient cavalry in the mode of warfare which prevailed then. No one describing a charge of cavalry among the Persians, the Greeks, or the Romans, when the only armour was the sword and the spear, would think of saying that there seemed to be emitted from the horses’ mouths fire, and smoke, and brimstone.

18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.

18. _By these three._ Three things――explained {229} immediately as referring to the fire, the smoke, and the brimstone. ¶ _Was the third part of men killed._ See Notes on ch. viii. 7‒12, on each of which verses we have notices of calamities that came upon the third part of the race, of the sea, of rivers, &c. We are not to suppose that this is to be taken literally, but the description is given as it _appeared_ to John. Those immense numbers of horsemen would sweep over the world, and a full third part of the race of men would seem to fall before them.

19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for [306]their tails _were_ like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.

19. _For their power is in their mouth._ That is, as described in the fire, smoke, and brimstone that proceeded out of their mouths. What struck the seer as remarkable on looking on the symbol was, that this immense destruction seemed to proceed out of their mouths. It was not that they trampled down their enemies; nor that they destroyed them with the sword, the bow, or the spear: it was some new and remarkable power in warfare――in which the destruction seemed to proceed from fire, and smoke, and sulphur issuing from the mouths of the horses themselves. ¶ _And in their tails._ The tails of the horses. This, of course, was something unusual and remarkable in horses, for naturally they have no power there. The power of a fish, or a scorpion, or a wasp, may be said to be in their tails, for their strength or their means of defence or of injury are there; but we never think of speaking in this way of horses. It is not necessary, in the interpretation of this, to suppose that the reference is literally to the tails of the horses, any more than it is to suppose that the smoke, and fire, and brimstone literally proceeded from their mouths. John describes things as they _appeared_ to him in looking at them from a considerable distance. From their mouths the horses belched forth fire, and smoke, and sulphur, and even their tails seemed to be armed for the work of death. ¶ _For their tails |were| like unto serpents._ Not like the tails of serpents, but like serpents themselves. ¶ _And had heads._ That is, there was something remarkable in the position and appearance of their _heads_. All serpents, of course, have heads; but John saw something unusual in this――or something so peculiar in their heads as to attract special attention. It would seem most probable that the heads of these serpents appeared to extend in every direction――as if the hairs of the horses’ tails had been converted into snakes, presenting a most fearful and destructive image. Perhaps it may illustrate this to suppose that there is reference to the Amphisbæna, or two-headed snake. It is said of this reptile that its tail resembles a head, and that with this it throws out its poison (Lucan, vol. ix. p. 179; Pliny’s _Hist. Nat._ vol. viii. p. 35). It really has but one head, but its tail has the appearance of a head, and it has the power of moving in either direction to a limited degree. If we suppose these snakes fastened to the tail of a horse, the appearance of _heads_ would be very prominent and remarkable. The image is that of the power of destruction. They seemed like ugly and poisonous serpents instead of tails. ¶ _And with them they do hurt._ Not the main injury, but they have the power of inflicting _some_ injury by them.

20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues, [307]yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not [308]worship devils, and [309]idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk.

21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their [310]sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

20, 21. _And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues_, &c. One third part is represented as swept off, and it might have been expected that a salutary effect would have been produced on the remainder, in reforming them, and restraining them from error and sin. The writer proceeds to state, however, that these judgments did _not_ have the effect which might {230} reasonably have been anticipated. No reformation followed; there was no abandonment of the prevailing forms of iniquity; there was no change in their idolatry and superstition. In regard to the _exact_ meaning of what is here stated (ver. 20, 21), it will be a more convenient arrangement to consider it _after_ we have ascertained the proper application of the passage relating to the sixth trumpet. What is here stated (ver. 20, 21) pertains to the state of the world _after_ the desolations which would occur under this woe-trumpet; and the explanation of the words may be reserved, therefore, with propriety, until the inquiry shall have been instituted as to the general design of the whole.

With respect to the fulfilment of this symbol――the sixth trumpet――it will be necessary to inquire whether there has been any event, or class of events, occurring at such a time, and in such a manner, as would be properly denoted by such a symbol. The examination of this question will make it necessary to go over the leading points _in_ the symbol, and to endeavour to apply them. In doing this I shall simply state, with such illustrations as may occur, what seems to me to have been the design of the symbol. It would be an endless task to examine all the explanations which have been proposed, and it would be useless to do so.

The reference, then, seems to me to be to the Turkish power, extending from the time of the first appearance of the Turks in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates, to the final conquest of Constantinople in 1453. The general reasons for this opinion are such as the following:――(a) If the previous trumpet referred to the Saracens, or to the rise of the Mahometan power among the Arabs, then the Turkish dominion, being the next in succession, would be that which would most naturally be symbolized. (b) The Turkish power rose on the decline of the Arabic, and was the next important power in affecting the destinies of the world. (c) This power, like the former, had its seat in the East, and would be properly classified under the events occurring there as affecting the destiny of the world. (d) The introduction of this power was _necessary_, in order to complete the survey of the downfall of the Roman empire――the great object kept in view all along in these symbols. In the first four of these trumpets, under the seventh seal, we found the decline and fall of the _Western_ empire; in the first of the remaining three――the fifth in order――we found the rise of the Saracens, materially affecting the condition of the _Eastern_ portion of the Roman world; and the notice of the Turks, under whom the empire at last fell to rise no more, seemed to be demanded in order to the completion of the picture. As a leading design of the whole vision was to describe the ultimate destiny of that formidable power――the Roman――which, in the time when the Revelation was given to John, ruled over the whole world; under which the church was then oppressed; and which, either as a civil or ecclesiastical power, was to exert so important an influence on the destiny of the church, it was proper that its history should be sketched until it ceased――that is, until the conquest of the capital of the Eastern empire by the Turks. Here the termination of the empire, as traced by Mr. Gibbon, closes; and these events it was important to incorporate in this series of visions.

The rise and character of the Turkish people may be seen stated in full in Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_, iii. 101‒103, 105, 486; iv. 41, 42, 87, 90, 91, 93, 100, 127, 143, 151, 258, 260, 289, 350. The leading facts in regard to the history of the Turks, so far as they are necessary to be known before we proceed to apply the symbols, are the following:――(1) The Turks, or Turkmans, had their origin in the vicinity of the Caspian Sea, and were divided into two branches, one on the east, and the other on the west. The latter colony, in the tenth century, could muster forty thousand soldiers; the other numbered a hundred thousand families (Gibbon, iv. 90). By the latter of these, Persia was invaded and subdued, and soon Bagdad also came into their possession, and the seat of the caliph was occupied by a Turkish prince. The various details respecting this, and respecting their conversion to the faith of the Koran, may be seen in Gibbon, iv. 90‒93. A mighty Turkish and Moslem power was thus concentrated under Togrul, who had subdued the caliph, in the vicinity of the Tigris and the Euphrates, extending east over Persia and the countries adjacent to the Caspian Sea, but it had not yet crossed the Euphrates to carry its conquests to the west. The conquest of Bagdad by Togrul, {231} the first prince of the Seljuk race, was an important event, not only in itself, but as it was by this event that the Turk was constituted temporal lieutenant of the prophet’s vicar, and so the head of the temporal power of the religion of Islam. “The conqueror of the East kissed the ground, stood some time in a modest posture, and was led toward the throne by the vizier and an interpreter. After Togrul had seated himself on another throne his commission was publicly read, which declared him the temporal lieutenant of the prophet. He was successively invested with seven robes of honour, and presented with seven slaves, the natives of the seven climates of the Arabian empire, &c. Their alliance [of the sultan and the caliph] was cemented by the marriage of Togrul’s sister with the successor of the prophet,” &c. (Gibbon, iv. 93). The conquest of Persia, the subjugation of Bagdad, the union of the Turkish power with that of the caliph, the successor of Mahomet, and the foundation of this powerful kingdom in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates, is all that is necessary to explain the sense of the phrase “which were _prepared_ for an hour,” &c., ver. 15. The arrangements were then made for the important series of events which were to occur when that formidable power should be summoned from the East, to spread the predicted desolation over so large a part of the world. A mighty dominion had been forming in the East that had subdued Persia, and that, by union with the caliphs, by the subjugation of Bagdad, and by embracing the Mahometan faith, had become “_prepared_” to play its subsequent important part in the affairs of the world. (2) The next important event in their history was the crossing of the Euphrates, and the invasion of Asia Minor. The account of this invasion can be best given in the words of Mr. Gibbon: “Twenty-five years after the death of Basil [the Greek emperor], his successors were suddenly assaulted by an unknown race of barbarians, who united the Scythian valour with the fanaticism of new proselytes, and the art and riches of a powerful monarchy. The myriads of Turkish horse overspread a frontier of six hundred miles from Taurus to Arzeroum, and the blood of one hundred and thirty thousand Christians was a grateful sacrifice to the Arabian prophet. Yet the arms of Togrul did not make any deep or lasting impression on the Greek empire. The torrent rolled away from the open country; the sultan retired without glory or success from the siege of an Armenian city; the obscure hostilities were continued or suspended with a vicissitude of events; and the bravery of the Macedonian legions renewed the fame of the conqueror of Asia. The name of Alp Arslan, the valiant lion, is expressive of the popular idea of the perfection of man; and the successor of Togrul displayed the fierceness and generosity of the royal animal. [‘The heads of the horses were as the heads of lions.’] He passed the Euphrates at the head of the Turkish cavalry, and entered Cæsarea, the metropolis of Cappadocia, to which he had been attracted by the fame and the wealth of the temple of St. Basil” (vol. iv. 93, 94; comp. also p. 95). (3) The next important event was the establishing of the kingdom of _Roum_ in Asia Minor. After a succession of victories and defeats; after being driven once and again from Asia Minor, and compelled to retire beyond its limits; and after subjecting the East to their arms (Gibbon, iv. 95‒100) in the various contests for the crown of the Eastern empire, the aid of the Turks was invoked by one party or the other until they secured for themselves a firm foothold in Asia Minor, and established themselves there in a permanent kingdom――evidently with the purpose of seizing upon Constantinople itself when an opportunity should be presented (Gibbon, iv. 100, 101). Of this kingdom of _Roum_ Mr. Gibbon (iv. 101) gives the following description, and speaks thus of the effect of its establishment on the destiny of the Eastern empire: “Since the first conquests of the caliphs, the establishment of the Turks in Anatolia, or Asia Minor, was the most deplorable loss which the church and empire had sustained. By the propagation of the Moslem faith Soliman deserved the name of Gazi, a holy champion; and his new kingdom of the Romans, or of _Roum_, was added to the table of Oriental geography. It is described as extending _from the Euphrates to Constantinople_, from the Black Sea to the confines of Syria; pregnant with mines of silver and iron, of alum and copper, fruitful in corn and wine, and productive of cattle and excellent horses. The wealth of Lydia, the arts of the Greeks, the splendour of the Augustan age, {232} existed only in books and ruins, which were equally obscure in the eyes of the Scythian conquerors. By the choice of the Sultan, Nice, the metropolis of Bithynia, was preferred for his palace and fortress――the seat of the Seljukian dynasty of Roum was planted one hundred miles from Constantinople; and the divinity of Christ was denied and derided in the same temple in which it had been pronounced by the first general synod of the Catholics. The unity of God and the mission of Mahomet were preached in the mosques; the Arabian learning was taught in the schools; the cadis judged according to the law of the Koran; the Turkish manners and language prevailed in the cities; and Turkman camps were scattered over the plains and mountains of Anatolia,” &c. (4) The next material event in the history of the Turkish power was the conquest of Jerusalem. See this described in Gibbon, iv. 102‒106. By this the attention of the Turks was turned for a time from the conquest of Constantinople――an event at which the Turkish power all along aimed, and in which they doubtless expected to be ultimately successful. Had they not been diverted from it by the wars connected with the Crusades, Constantinople would have fallen long before it did fall, for it was too feeble to defend itself if it had been attacked. (5) The conquest of Jerusalem by the Turks, and the oppressions which Christians experienced there, gave rise to the Crusades, by which the destiny of Constantinople was still longer delayed. The war of the Crusades was made on the Turks, and as the crusaders mostly passed through Constantinople and Anatolia, all the power of the Turks in Asia Minor was requisite to defend themselves, and they were incapable of making an attack on Constantinople until after the final defeat of the crusaders and restoration of peace. See Gibbon, iv. 106‒210. (6) The next material event in the history of the Turks was the conquest of Constantinople in A.D. 1453――an event which established the Turkish power in Europe and completed the downfall of the Roman empire (Gibbon, iv. 333‒359).

After this brief reference to the general history of the Turkish power, we are prepared to inquire more particularly whether the symbol in the passage before us is applicable to this series of events. This may be considered in several particulars.

(1) _The time._ If the first woe-trumpet referred to the Saracens, then it would be natural that the rise and progress of the Turkish power should be symbolized as the next great fact in history, and as that under which the empire fell. As we have seen, the Turkish power rose immediately after the power of the Saracens had reached its height, and identified itself with the Mahometan religion; and was, in fact, the next great power that affected the Roman empire, the welfare of the church, and the history of the world. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the _time_ is such as is demanded in the proper interpretation of the symbol.

(2) _The place._ We have seen (in the remarks on ver. 14) that this was on or near the river Euphrates, and that this power was long forming and consolidating itself on the east of that river before it crossed it in the invasion of Asia Minor. It had spread over Persia, and had even invaded the region of the East as far as the Indies; it had secured, under Togrul, the conquest of Bagdad, and had united itself with the caliphate, and was, in fact, a mighty power “_prepared_” for conquest before it moved to the west. Thus Mr. Gibbon (iv. 92) says, “The more rustic, perhaps the wisest, portion of the Turkmans continued to dwell in the tents of their ancestors; and from the Oxus to the _Euphrates_ these military colonies were protected and propagated by their native princes.” So again, speaking of Alp Arslan, the son and successor of Togrul, he says (iv. 94), “He passed the _Euphrates_ at the head of the Turkish cavalry, and entered Cæsarea, the metropolis of Cappadocia, to which he was attracted by the fame and the wealth of the temple of St. Basil.” If it be admitted that it was _intended_ by John to refer to the Turkish power, it could not have been better represented than as a power that had been forming in the vicinity of that great river, and that was prepared to precipitate itself on the Eastern empire. To one contemplating it in the time of Togrul or Alp Arslan, it would have _appeared_ as a mighty power growing up in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates.

(3) _The four angels_: “Loose the four angels which are bound.” That is, loose the powers which are in the vicinity of the Euphrates, _as if_ they were under the control of four angels. The most natural construction of this would {233} be, that under the mighty power that was to sweep over the world, there were four subordinate powers, or that there were such subdivisions that it might be supposed they were ranged under _four_ angelic powers or leaders. The question is, whether there was any such division or arrangement of the Turkish power, that, to one looking on it at a distance, there would _seem_ to be such a division. In the _History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ (iv. 100) we find the following statement:――“The greatness and unity of the Turkish empire expired in the person of Malek Shah. The vacant throne was disputed by his brother and his four sons; and, after a series of civil wars, the treaty which reconciled the surviving candidates confirmed a lasting separation in the Persian dynasty, the oldest and principal branch of the house of Seljuk. The three younger dynasties were those of _Kerman_, of _Syria_, and of _Roum_; the first of these commanded an extensive, though obscure dominion, on the shores of the Indian Ocean; the second expelled the Arabian princes of Aleppo and Damascus; and the third (our peculiar care) invaded the Roman provinces of Asia Minor. The generous policy of Malek contributed to their elevation; he allowed the princes of his blood, even those whom he had vanquished in the field, to seek new kingdoms worthy of their ambition; nor was he displeased that they should draw away the more ardent spirits who might have disturbed the tranquillity of his reign. As the supreme head of his family and nation, the great Sultan of Persia commanded the obedience and tribute of his royal brethren: the thrones of Kerman and Nice, of Aleppo and Damascus; the atabeks and emirs of Syria and Mesopotamia erected their standards under the shadow of his sceptre, and the hordes of Turkmans overspread the plains of Western Asia. After the death of Malek the bands of union and subordination were gradually relaxed and dissolved; the indulgence of the house of Seljuk invested their slaves with the inheritance of kingdoms; and, in the Oriental style, a crowd of princes arose from the dust of their feet.” Here it is observable, that, at the period when the Turkman hordes were about to precipitate themselves on Europe, and to advance to the destruction of the Eastern empire, we have distinct mention of _four_ great departments of the Turkish power: the original power that had established itself in Persia, under Malek Shah, and the three subordinate powers that sprung out of that of Kerman, Syria, and Roum. It is observable (a) that this occurs at the period when that power would appear in the East as advancing in its conquests to the West; (b) that it was in the vicinity of the great river Euphrates; (c) that it had never before occurred――the Turkish power having been before united as one; and (d) that it never afterwards occurred――for, in the words of Mr. Gibbon, “after the death of Malek the bands of union and subordination were relaxed and finally dissolved.” It would not be improper, then, to look upon this one mighty power as under the control of four spirits that were held in check in the East, and that were “prepared” to pour their energies on the Roman empire.

(4) _The preparation_: “Prepared for an hour,” &c. That is, arranged; made ready――as if by previous discipline――for some mighty enterprise. Applied to the Turkmans, this would mean that the preparation for the ultimate work which they executed had been making as that power increased and became consolidated under Togrul, Alp Arslan, and Malek Shah. In its successful strides Persia and the East had been subdued; the caliph at Bagdad had been brought under the control of the sultan; a union had been formed between the Turks and the Saracens; and the sultanies of Kerman, Syria, and Roum had been established――embracing together all the countries of the East, and constituting this by far the most mighty nation on the globe. All this would seem to be a work of _preparation_ to do what was afterwards done as seen in the visions of John.

(5) _The fact that they were bound_: “Which are bound in the great river Euphrates.” That is, they were, as it were, _restrained_ and _kept back_ for a long time in that vicinity. It would have been natural to suppose that that vast power would at once move on toward the West to the conquest of the capital of the Eastern empire. Such had been the case with the Huns, the Goths, and the Vandals. But these Turkish hordes had been long restrained in the East. They had subdued Persia. They had then achieved the conquest of India. They had conquered Bagdad, and the entire East was under their control. {234} Yet for a long time they had now been inactive, and it would seem as if they had been _bound_ or _restrained_ by some mighty power from moving in their conquests to the West.

(6) _The material that composed the army_: “And the number of the army _of the horsemen_.” “And thus I saw _the horses_ in the vision.――And the heads of _the horses_ were as the heads of lions.” From this it appears that this vast host was composed mainly of cavalry; and it is hardly necessary to say that this description would apply better to the Turkish hordes than to any other body of invaders known in history. Thus Mr. Gibbon (vol. iv. p. 94) says, “The myriads of the Turkish _horse_ overspread a frontier of six hundred miles, from Taurus to Arzeroum,” A.D. 1050. So again, speaking of Togrul (vol. iv. p. 94), “He passed the Euphrates at the head of the Turkish _cavalry_” (_ibid._). So again (vol. iii. p. 95), “Alp Arslan flew to the scene of action at the head of forty thousand horse.” A.D. 1071. So in the attack of the crusaders on Nice, the capital of the Turkish kingdom of Roum, Mr. Gibbon (vol. iv. p. 127) says of the sultan Soliman: “Yielding to the first impulse of the torrent, he deposited his treasure and family in Nice; retired to the mountains with fifty thousand horse,” &c. And so again (_ibid._), speaking of the Turks who rallied to oppose the “strange” invasion of “the Western barbarians,” he says, “The Turkish emirs obeyed the call of loyalty or religion; the Turkman hordes encamped round his standard; and his whole force is loosely stated by the Christians at two hundred, or even three hundred and sixty thousand horse,” A.D. 1097. Every student of history knows that the Turks, or Turkmans, in the early periods of their history, were remarkable for their cavalry.

(7) _Their numbers_: “And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand.” That is, it was _vast_, or it was such as to be reckoned by _myriads_, or by tens of thousands――δύο μυριάδες μυριάδων――_two myriads of myriads_. Thus Mr. Gibbon (vol. iv. p. 94) says, “The _myriads_ of Turkish horse overspread,” &c. It has been suggested by Daubuz that in this there may be probably an allusion to the Turkman custom of numbering by _tomans_, or _myriads_. This custom, it is true, has existed elsewhere, but there is probably none with whom it has been so familiar as with the Tartars and Turks. In the Seljukian age the population of Samarcand was rated at seven _tomans_ (_myriads_), because it could send out 70,000 warriors. The dignity and rank of Tamerlane’s father and grandfather was thus described, that “they were the hereditary chiefs of a _toman_, or 10,000 horse”――_a myriad_ (Gibbon, vol. iv. p. 270); so that it is not without his usual propriety of language that Mr. Gibbon speaks of the _myriads_ of the Turkish horse, or of the cavalry of the earlier Turks of Mount Altai, “being, both men and horses, proudly computed by _myriads_.” One thing is clear, that to no other invading hosts could the language here used be so well applied, and if it were supposed that John was writing _after_ the event, this would be the language which he would be likely to employ――for this is nearly the identical language employed by the historian Gibbon.

(8) _Their personal appearance_: “Them that sat on them having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone”――as explained above, in a “uniform” of red, and blue, and yellow. This might, undoubtedly, be applicable to other armies besides the Turkish hordes; but the proper question here is, whether it _would be_ applicable to them. The fact of the application of the symbol to the Turks in general must be determined from other points in the symbol which designate them clearly; the only natural inquiry here is, whether this description would apply to the Turkish hosts; for if it would not, that would be fatal to the whole interpretation. On the application of this passage to the Turks Mr. Daubuz justly remarks, that “from their first appearance the Ottomans have affected to wear warlike apparel of scarlet, blue, and yellow――a descriptive trait the more marked from its contrast to the military appearance of the Greeks, Franks, or Saracens contemporarily.” Mr. Elliott adds: “It only needs to have seen the Turkish cavalry (as they _were_ before the late innovations), whether in war itself, or in the djerrid war’s mimicry, to leave an impression of the absolute necessity of some such notice of their rich and varied colourings, in order to give in description at all a just impression of their appearance,” vol. i. p. 481.

(9) _The remarkable appearance of the cavalry_: “Having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone; and the {235} heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire, and smoke, and brimstone.” It was remarked in the exposition of this passage that this is just such a description as would be given of an army to which the use of gunpowder was known, and which made use of it in these wars. Looking now upon a body of cavalry in the heat of an engagement, it would seem, if the cause were not known, that the horses belched forth smoke and sulphurous flame. The only question now is, whether in the warfare of the Turks there was anything which would peculiarly or remarkably justify this description. And here it is impossible not to advert to the historical fact that they were among the first to make use of gunpowder in their wars, and that to the use of this destructive element they owed much of their success and their ultimate triumphs. The historical truth of this it is necessary now to advert to, and this will be done by a reference to Mr. Gibbon, and to the account which he has given of the final conquest of Constantinople by the Turks. It will be seen how he puts this new instrumentality of war into the foreground in his account; how prominent this seemed to _him_ to be in describing the victories of the Turks; and how probable, therefore, it is that John, in describing an invasion by them, would refer to the “fire and smoke and brimstone,” that seemed to be emitted from the mouths of their horses. As preparatory to the account of the siege and conquest of Constantinople by the Turks, Mr. Gibbon gives a description of the invention and use of gunpowder. “The chemists of China or Europe had found, by casual or elaborate experiments, that a mixture of saltpetre, sulphur, and charcoal produces, with a spark of fire, a tremendous explosion. It was soon observed that if the expansive force were compressed in a strong tube, a ball of stone or iron might be expelled with irresistible and destructive velocity. The precise era of the invention and application of gunpowder is involved in doubtful traditions and equivocal language; yet we may clearly discern that it was known before the middle of the fourteenth century; and that before the end of the same the use of artillery in battles and sieges, by sea and land, was familiar to the states of Germany, Italy, Spain, France, and England. The priority of nations is of small account; none could derive any exclusive benefit from their previous or superior knowledge; and in the common improvement they stood on the same level of relative power and military science. Nor was it possible to circumscribe the secret within the pale of the church; it was disclosed _to the Turks_ by the treachery of apostates and the selfish policy of rivals; and the sultans had sense to adopt, and wealth to reward, the talents of a Christian engineer. By the Venetians the use of gunpowder was communicated without reproach to the sultans of Egypt and Persia, their allies against the Ottoman power; the secret was soon propagated to the extremities of Asia; and the advantage of the European was confined to his easy victories over the savages of the New World,” vol. iv. p. 291. In the description of the conquest of Constantinople Mr. Gibbon makes frequent mention of their artillery, and of the use of gunpowder, and of its important agency in securing their final conquests, and in the overthrow of the Eastern empire. “Among the implements of destruction he [the Turkish sultan] studied with peculiar care the recent and tremendous discovery of the Latins; and his artillery surpassed whatever had yet appeared in the world. A founder of cannon, a Dane or Hungarian, who had almost starved in the Greek service, deserted to the Moslems, and was liberally entertained by the Turkish sultan. Mahomet was satisfied with the answer to his first question, which he eagerly pressed on the artist: ‘Am I able to cast a cannon capable of throwing a ball or stone of sufficient size to batter the walls of Constantinople? I am not ignorant of their strength, but, were they more solid than those of Babylon, I could oppose an engine of superior power; the position and management of that engine must be left to your engineers.’ On this assurance a foundry was established at Adrianople; the metal was prepared; and at the end of three months Urban produced a piece of brass ordnance of stupendous and almost incredible magnitude: a measure of twelve palms is assigned to the bore; and the stone bullet weighed above six hundred pounds. A vacant place before the new palace was chosen for the first experiment; but to prevent the sudden and mischievous effects of astonishment and fear, a proclamation was issued that the cannon would be {236} discharged the ensuing day. The explosion was felt or heard in a circuit of a hundred furlongs; the ball, by force of gunpowder, was driven above a mile; and on the spot where it fell it buried itself a fathom deep in the ground,” vol. iv. p. 339. So, in speaking of the siege of Constantinople by the Turks, Mr. Gibbon says of the defence by the Christians (vol. iv. p. 343): “The incessant volleys of lances and arrows were accompanied with the smoke, the sound, and the fire of their musketry and cannon.” “The same destructive secret,” he adds, “had been revealed to the Moslems, by whom it was employed with the superior energy of zeal, riches, and despotism. The great cannon of Mahomet has been separately noticed――an important and visible object in the history of the times; but that enormous engine was flanked by two fellows almost of equal magnitude; the long order of the Turkish artillery was pointed against the walls; fourteen batteries thundered at once on the most accessible places; and of one of these it is ambiguously expressed that it was mounted with one hundred and thirty guns, or that it discharged one hundred and thirty bullets,” vol. iv. pp. 343, 344. Again: “The first random shots were productive of more sound than effect; and it was by the advice of a Christian that the engineers were taught to level their aim against the two opposite sides of the salient angles of a bastion. However imperfect, the weight and repetition of the fire made some impression on the walls,” vol. iv. p. 344. And again: “A circumstance that distinguishes the siege of Constantinople is the reunion of the ancient and modern artillery. The cannon were intermingled with the mechanical engines for casting stones and darts; the bullet and the battering-ram were directed against the same walls; nor had the discovery of gunpowder superseded the use of the liquid and inextinguishable fire,” vol. iv. p. 344. So again, in the description of the final conflict when Constantinople was taken, Mr. Gibbon says, “From the lines, the galleys, and the bridge, the Ottoman artillery thundered on all sides; and the camp and city, the Greeks and the Turks, were involved in a cloud of smoke which could only be dispelled by the final deliverance or destruction of the Roman empire,” vol. iv. p. 350. Assuredly, if such was _the fact_ in the conquests of the Turks, it was not unnatural in one who was looking on these warriors in vision to describe them as if they seemed to belch out “fire and smoke and brimstone.” If Mr. Gibbon had _designed_ to describe the conquest of the Turks as a fulfilment of the prediction, could he have done it in a style more clear and graphic than that which he has employed? If this had occurred in a _Christian_ writer, would it not have been charged on him that he had shaped his facts to meet his notions of the meaning of the prophecy?

(10) The statement that “their power was in their mouth, and in their tails,” ver. 19. The former part of this has been illustrated. The inquiry now is, what is the meaning of the declaration that “their power was in their tails?” In ver. 19 their tails are described as resembling “serpents, having heads,” and it is said that “with them they do hurt.” See Notes on that verse. The allusion to the “serpents” would seem to imply that there was something in the horses’ tails, as compared with them, or in some _use_ that was made of them, which would make this language proper; that is, that their appearance would so suggest the idea of death and destruction, that the mind would easily imagine they were a bundle of serpents. The following remarks may show how applicable this was to the Turks: (a) In the Turkish hordes there was _something_, whatever it was, that naturally suggested _some_ resemblance to serpents. Of the Turkmans when they began to spread their conquests over Asia, in the eleventh century, and an effort was made to rouse the people against them, Mr. Gibbon makes the following remark: “Massoud, the son and successor of Mahmoud, had too long neglected the advice of his wisest Omrahs. ‘Your enemies’ [the Turkmans], they repeatedly urged, ’were in their origin a swarm of ants; they are now little snakes; and unless they be instantly crushed, they will acquire the venom and magnitude of serpents,” vol. iv. p. 91. (b) It is a remarkable fact that the horse’s tail is a well-known Turkish standard――a symbol of office and authority. “The pashas are distinguished, after a Tartar custom, by three horsetails on the side of their tents, and receive by courtesy the title of _beyler bey_, or prince of princes. The next in rank are the pashas of two tails, the beys who are honoured with one tail.”――_Edin. Ency._ {237} (art. “Turkey”). In the times of their early warlike career the principal standard was once lost in battle, and the Turkman commander, in default, cut off his horse’s tail, lifted it on a pole, made it the rallying ensign, and so gained the victory. So Tournefort in his _Travels_ states. The following is Ferrario’s account of the origin of this ensign:――“An author acquainted with their customs says, that a general of theirs, not knowing how to rally his troops that had lost their standards, cut off a horse’s tail, and fixed it to the end of a spear; and the soldiers rallying at that signal, gained the victory.” He adds farther, that whereas “on his appointment a pasha of the three tails _used_ to receive a drum and a standard, now for the _drum_ there have been substituted three horses’ tails, tied at the end of a spear, round a gilded haft. One of the first officers of the palace presents him these three tails as a standard” (Elliott, vol. i. pp. 485, 486). This remarkable standard or ensign is found only among the Turks, and, if there was an intended reference to them, the symbol here would be the proper one to be adopted. The _meaning_ of the passage where it is said that “their _power_ is in their tails” would seem to be, that their tails were the symbol or emblem of their authority――as in fact the horse’s tail is in the appointment of a pasha. The _image_ before the mind of John would seem to have been, that he saw the horses belching out fire and smoke, and, what was equally strange, he saw that their power of spreading desolation was connected with the tails of horses. Anyone looking on a body of cavalry with such banners or ensigns would be struck with this unusual and remarkable appearance, and would speak of their banners as concentrating and directing their power. The above engraving, representing the standard of a Turkish pasha, will illustrate the passage before us.

Illustration: Standard-bearer of a Turkish Pasha.

(11) The number slain, ver. 18. That is said to have been “the third part of men.” No one in reading the accounts of the wars of the Turks, and of the ravages which they have committed, would be likely to feel that this is an exaggeration. It is not necessary to suppose that it is _literally_ accurate, but it is such a representation as would strike one in looking over the world, and contemplating the effect of their invasions. If the other specifications in the symbol are correct, there would be no hesitation in admitting the propriety of this.

(12) The time of the continuance of this power. This is a material, and a more difficult point. It is said (ver. 15) to be “an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year;” that is, as explained, three hundred and ninety-one years, and the portion of a year indicated by the expression “an hour;” to wit, an additional twelfth or twenty-fourth part of a year. The question now is, whether, supposing the time to which this reaches to be the capture of Constantinople, and the consequent downfall of the Roman empire――the object in view in this series of visions――in reckoning _back_ from that period for 391 years, we should reach an epoch that would properly denote the moving forward of this power towards its final conquest; that is, whether there was any such marked epoch that, if the 391 years were added to it, it would reach the year of the conquest of Constantinople, A.D. 1453. The period that would be indicated by taking the number 391 from 1453 would be 1062――and that is the time in which we are to look for the event referred to. This is on the supposition that the year consisted of 360 days, or twelve months of thirty days each. If, however, instead of this, we reckon 365 days and six hours, then the length of time would be found to amount to 396 years and {238} 106 days.[311] This would make the time of the “loosening of the angels,” or the moving forward of this power, to be A.D. 1057. In the uncertainty on this point, and in the unsettled state of ancient chronology, it would, perhaps, be vain to hope for minute accuracy, and it is not reasonable to demand it of an interpreter. On any fair principle of interpretation it would be sufficient if at _about_ one of these periods――A.D. 1062 or A.D. 1057――there was found such a definite or strongly marked event as would indicate a movement of the hitherto restrained power toward the West. This is the real point, then, to be determined. Now, in a common work on chronology I find this record: “A.D. 1055, Turks reduce Bagdad, and overturn the empire of the caliphs.” In a work still more important to our purpose (Gibbon, iv. 92, 93), under the date of A.D. 1055, I find a series of statements which will show the propriety of referring to that event as the one by which this power, so long restrained, was “let loose;” that is, was placed in such a state that its final conquest of the Eastern empire certainly followed. The event was the union of the Turkish power with the caliphate in such a way that the sultan was regarded as “the temporal lieutenant of the vicar of the prophet.” Of this event Mr. Gibbon gives the following account. After mentioning the conversion of the Turks to the Moslem faith, and especially the zeal with which the son of Seljuk had embraced that faith, he proceeds to state the manner in which the Turkish sultan Togrul came in possession of Bagdad, and was invested with the high office of the “temporal lieutenant of the vicar of the prophet.” There were two caliphs, those of Bagdad and Egypt, and “the sublime character of the successor of the prophet” was “disputed” by them, iv. 93. Each of them became “solicitous to prove his title in the judgment of the strong though illiterate barbarians.” Mr. Gibbon then says, “Mahmoud the Gaznevide had declared himself in favour of the line of Abbas; and had treated with indignity the robe of honour which was presented by the Fatimite ambassador. Yet the ungrateful Hashemite had changed with the change of fortune; he applauded the victory of Zendecan, and named the Seljukian sultan his temporal vicegerent over the Moslem world. As Togrul executed and enlarged this important trust, he was called to the deliverance of the caliph Cayem, and obeyed the holy summons, which gave a new kingdom to his arms. In the palace of Bagdad the commander of the faithful still slumbered, a venerable phantom. His servant or master, the prince of the Bowides, could no longer protect him from the insolence of meaner tyrants; and the Euphrates and the Tigris were oppressed by the revolt of the Turkish and Arabian emirs. The presence of a conqueror was implored as a blessing; and the transient mischiefs of fire and sword were excused as the sharp but salutary remedies which alone could restore the health of the republic. At the head of an irresistible force the sultan of Persia marched from Hamadan; the proud were crushed, the prostrate were spared; the prince of the Bowides disappeared; the heads of the most obstinate rebels were laid at the feet of Togrul; and he inflicted a lesson of obedience on the people of Mosul and Bagdad. After the chastisement of the guilty, and the restoration of peace, the royal shepherd accepted the reward of his labours; and a solemn comedy represented the triumph of religious prejudice over barbarian power. The Turkish sultan embarked on the Tigris, landed at the gate of Racca, and made his public entry on horseback. At the palace gate he respectfully dismounted, and walked on foot preceded by his emirs without arms. The caliph was seated behind his black veil; the black garment of the Abbassides was cast over his shoulders, and he held in his hand the staff of the Apostle of God. The conqueror of the East kissed the ground, stood some time in a modest posture, and was led toward the throne by the vizier and an interpreter. After Togrul had seated himself on another throne, his commission was publicly read, _which declared him the temporal lieutenant of the vicar of the {239} prophet_. He was successively invested with seven robes of honour, and presented with seven slaves, the natives of the seven climates of the Arabian empire. His mystic veil was perfumed with musk; two crowns were placed on his head; two scimetars were girded to his side, as the symbols of a double reign over the East and West. Their alliance was cemented by the marriage of Togrul’s sister with the successor of the prophet,” iv. 93, 94. This event, so described, was of sufficient importance, as constituting a _union_ of the Turkish power with the Moslem faith, as making it practicable to move in their conquests toward the West, and as connected in its ultimate results with the downfall of the Eastern empire, to make it an _epoch_ in the history of nations. In fact, it was _the_ point which one would have particularly looked at, after describing the movements of the Saracens (ch. ix. 1‒11), as the next event that was to change the condition of the world.

Happily we have also the means of fixing the exact date of this event, so as to make it accord with singular accuracy with the period supposed to be referred to. The _general_ time specified by Mr. Gibbon is A.D. 1055. This, according to the two methods referred to of determining the period embraced in the “hour, and day, and month, and year,” would reach, if the period were 391 years, to A.D. 1446; if the other method were referred to, making it 396 years and 106 days to A.D. 1451, with 106 days added, within less than two years of the actual taking of Constantinople. But there is a more accurate calculation as to the time than the _general_ one thus made. In vol. iv. 93 Mr. Gibbon makes this remark:――“Twenty-five years after the death of Basil his successors were suddenly assaulted by an unknown race of barbarians, who united the Scythian valour with the fanaticism of new proselytes, and the art and riches of a powerful monarchy.” He then proceeds (p. 94, seq.) with an account of the invasions of the Turks. In vol. iii. 307 we have an account of the death of Basil. “In the sixty-eighth year of his age his martial spirit urged him to embark in person for a holy war against the Saracens of Sicily; he was prevented by death, and Basil, surnamed the slayer of the Bulgarians, was dismissed from the world, with the blessings of the clergy and the curses of the people.” This occurred A.D. 1025. “Twenty-five years” after this would make A.D. 1050. To this add the period here referred to, and we have respectively, as above, the years A.D. 1446, or A.D. 1451, and 106 days. Both periods are near the time of the taking of Constantinople and the downfall of the Eastern empire (A.D. 1453), and the latter strikingly so; and, considering the general nature of the statement of Mr. Gibbon, and the great indefiniteness of the dates in chronology, may be considered as remarkable.――But we have the means of a still more accurate calculation. It is by determining the exact period of the investiture of Togrul with the authority of caliph, or as the “temporal lieutenant of the vicar of the prophet.” The time of this investiture, or coronation, is mentioned by Abulfeda as occurring on the 25th of Dzoulcad, in the year of the Hegira 449; and the date of Elmakin’s narrative, who has given an account of this, perfectly agrees with this. Of this transaction Elmakin makes the following remark:――“There was now none left in Irak or Chorasmia who could stand before him.” The _importance_ of this investiture will be seen from the charge which the caliph is reported by Abulfeda to have given to Togrul on this occasion:――“The caliph commits to your care all that part of the world which God has committed to his care and dominion; and intrusts to thee, under the name of vicegerent, the guardianship of the pious, faithful, and God-serving citizens.”[312] The exact _time_ of this investiture is stated by Abulfeda, as above, to be the 25th of Dzoulcad, A.H. 449. Now, reckoning this as the time, and we have the following result:――The 25th of Dzoulcad, A.H. 449, would answer to February 2, A.D. 1058. From this to May 29, 1453, the time when Constantinople was taken, would be 395 years and 116 days. The _prophetic_ period, as above, is 396 years and 106 days――making a difference only of 1 year and 10 days――a result that cannot but be considered as remarkable, considering the difficulty of fixing ancient dates. Or if, with Mr. Elliott (i. 495‒499), we suppose that the time is to be reckoned from the period when the Turkman {240} power went forth from Bagdad on a career of conquest, the reckoning should be from the year of the Hegira 448, the year before the _formal_ investiture, then this would make a difference of only 24 days. The date of that event was the 10th of Dzoulcad, A.H. 448. That was the day in which Togrul with his Turkmans, now the representative and head of the power of Islamism, quitted Bagdad to enter on a long career of war and conquest. “The part allotted to Togrul himself in the fearful drama soon to open against the Greeks was to extend and establish the Turkman dominion over the frontier countries of Irak and Mesopotamia, that so the requisite strength might be attained for the attack ordained of God’s counsels against the Greek empire. The first step to this was the siege and capture of Moussul; his next of Singara. Nisibis, too, was visited by him; that frontier fortress that had in other days been so long a bulwark to the Greeks. Everywhere victory attended his banner――a presage of what was to follow.” Reckoning from that time, the coincidence between the period that elapsed from that, and the conquest of Constantinople, would be 396 years and 130 days――a period that corresponds, with only a difference of 24 days, with that specified in the prophecy according to the explanation already given. It could not be expected that a coincidence more accurate than this could be made out on the supposition that the prophecy was designed to refer to these events; and if it _did_ refer to them, the coincidence could have occurred only as a prediction by Him who sees with perfect accuracy all the future.

(13) The effect. This is stated, in ver. 20, 21, to be that those who survived these plagues did _not_ repent of their wickedness, but that the abominations which existed before still remained. In endeavouring to determine the meaning of this, it will be proper, first, to ascertain the exact sense of the words used, and then to inquire whether a state of things existed subsequent to the invasions of the Turks which corresponded with the description here.

(a) The explanation of the language used in ver. 20, 21. ¶ _The rest of the men._ That portion of the world on which these plagues did not come. One-third of the race, it is said, would fall under these calamities, and the writer now proceeds to state what would be the effect on the remainder. The language used――“_the rest of the men_”――is not such as to designate with certainty any particular portion of the world, but it is implied that the things mentioned were of very general prevalence. ¶ _Which were not killed by these plagues._ The two-thirds of the race which were spared. The language here is such as would be used on the supposition that the crimes here referred to abounded in all those regions which came within the range of the vision of the apostle. ¶ _Yet repented not of the works of their hands._ To wit, of those things which are immediately specified. ¶ _That they should not worship devils._ Implying that they practised this before. The word used here――δαιμόνιον――means properly _a god_, _deity_; spoken of the heathen gods, Ac. xvii. 18; then a genius, or tutelary demon, _e.g._ that of Socrates; and, in the New Testament, a demon in the sense of an evil spirit. See the word fully explained in the Notes on 1 Co. x. 20. The meaning of the passage here, as in 1 Co. x. 20, “they sacrifice to devils,” is not that they literally worshipped _devils_ in the usual sense of that term, though it is true that such worship does exist in the world, as among the Yezidis (see Layard, _Nineveh and its Remains_, vol. i. pp. 225‒254, and Rosenmüller, _Morgenland_, i.i. 212‒216); but that they worshipped beings _which were inferior to the Supreme God_; created spirits of a rank superior to men, or the spirits of men that had been enrolled among the gods. This last was a common form of worship among the heathen, for a large portion of the gods whom they adored were heroes and benefactors who had been enrolled among the gods――as Hercules, Bacchus, &c. All that is necessarily implied in this word is, that there prevailed in the time referred to the worship of spirits inferior to God, or the worship of the spirits of departed men. This idea would be more naturally suggested to the mind of a Greek by the use of the word than the worship of evil spirits as such――if indeed it would have conveyed that idea at all; and this word would be properly employed in the representation if there was _any_ homage rendered to departed human spirits which came in the place of the worship of the true God. Comp. a dissertation on the meaning of the word used here, in {241} Elliott on the _Apocalypse_, Appendix I. vol. ii. ¶ _And idols of gold, and silver_, &c. Idols were formerly, as they are now in heathen lands, made of all these materials. The most costly would, of course, denote a higher degree of veneration for the god, or greater wealth in the worshipper, and all would be employed as symbols or representatives of the gods whom they adored. The _meaning_ of this passage is, that there would prevail, at that time, what would be properly called _idolatry_, and that this would be represented by the worship paid to these images or idols. It is not necessary to the proper understanding of this, to suppose that the images or idols worshipped were acknowledged _heathen idols_, or were erected in honour of _heathen gods_, as such. All that is implied is, that there would be such images――εἴδωλα――and that a degree of homage would be paid to them which would be in fact idolatry. The word here used――εἴδωλον, εἴδωλα――properly means an image, spectre, shade; then an idol-image, or that which was a representative of a heathen god; and then the idol-god itself――a heathen deity. So far as the _word_ is concerned, it may be applied to any kind of image-worship. ¶ _Which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk._ The common representation of idol-worship in the Scriptures, to denote its folly and stupidity. See Ps. cxv.; comp. Is. xliv. 9‒19. ¶ _Neither repented they of their murders._ This implies that, at the time referred to, murders would abound; or that the times would be characterized by that which deserved to be _called_ murder. ¶ _Nor of their sorceries._ The word rendered _sorceries_――φαρμακεία――whence our word _pharmacy_, means properly _the preparing and giving of medicine_, Eng. _pharmacy_ (Rob. _Lex._). Then, as the art of medicine was supposed to have magical power, or as the persons who practised medicine, in order to give themselves and their art greater importance, practised various arts of incantation, the word came to be connected with the idea of magic sorcery, or enchantment. See Schleusner, _Lex._ In the New Testament the word is _never_ used in a good sense, as denoting the preparation of medicine, but always in this secondary sense, as denoting sorcery, magic, &c. Thus in Ga. v. 20, “the works of the flesh――idolatry, _witchcraft_,” &c. Re. ix. 21, “Of their _sorceries_.” Re. xviii. 23, “For by thy _sorceries_ were all nations deceived.” Re. xxi. 8, “Whoremongers, and _sorcerers_.” The word does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament; and the _meaning_ of the word would be fulfilled in anything that purposed to accomplish an object by sorcery, by magical arts, by trick, by cunning, by sleight of hand, or by _deceiving the senses in any way_. Thus it would be applicable to all jugglery and to all pretended miracles. ¶ _Nor of their fornication._ Implying that this would be a prevalent sin in the times referred to, and that the dreadful plagues which are here predicted would make no essential change in reference to its prevalence. ¶ _And of their thefts._ Implying that _this_, too, would be a common form of iniquity. The word used here――κλέμμα――is the common word to denote _theft_. The true idea in the word is that of privately, unlawfully, and feloniously taking the goods or movables of another person. In a larger and in the popular sense, however, this word might embrace all acts of taking the property of another by dishonest arts, or on false pretence, or without an equivalent.

(b) The next point then is, the inquiry whether there was any such state of things as is specified here existing in the time of the rise of the Turkish power, and in the time of the calamities which that formidable power brought upon the world. There are two things implied in the statement here: (1) that these things had an existence before the invasion and destruction of the Eastern empire by the Turkish power; and (2) that they continued to exist after that, or were not removed by these fearful calamities. The supposition all along in this interpretation is, that the eye of the prophet was on the Roman world, and that the design was to mark the various events which would characterize its future history. We look, then, in the application of this, to the state of things existing in connection with the Roman power, or that portion of the world which was then pervaded by the Roman religion. This will make it necessary to institute an inquiry whether the things here specified prevailed in that part of the world before the invasions of the Turks, and the conquest of Constantinople, and whether the judgments inflicted by that formidable Turkish invasion made any essential change in this respect.

(1) The statement that they worshipped {242} devils; that is, as explained, demons, or the deified souls of men. Homage rendered to the spirits of departed men, and substituted in the place of the worship of the true God, would meet all that is properly implied here. We may refer, then, to the worship of _saints_ in the Romish communion as a complete fulfilment of what is here implied in the language used by John. The fact cannot be disputed that the invocation of saints took the place, in the Roman Catholic communion, of the worship of sages and heroes in heathen Rome, and that the canonization of saints took the place of the ancient deification of heroes and public benefactors. The same kind of homage was rendered to them; their aid was invoked in a similar manner, and on similar occasions; the effect on the popular mind was substantially the same; and the one interfered as really as the other with the worship of the true God. The decrees of the seventh general council, known as the second council of Nice, A.D. 787, authorized and established the worshipping (προσκυνέω――the same word used here――προσκυνήσωσι τὰ δαιμόνια) of the saints and their images. This occurred _after_ the exciting scenes, the debates, and the disorders produced by the Iconoclasts, or image-breakers, and after the most careful deliberation on the subject. In that celebrated council it was decreed, according to Mr. Gibbon (iii. 341), “unanimously,” “that the worship of images is agreeable to Scripture and reason, to the fathers and councils of the church; but they hesitate whether that worship be relative or direct; whether the Godhead and the figure of Christ be entitled to the same mode of adoration.” This worship of the “saints,” or prayer to the saints, asking for their intercession, it is well known, has from that time everywhere prevailed in the Papal communion. Indeed, a large part of the actual _prayers_ offered in their services is addressed to the Virgin Mary. Mr. Maitland, “the able and learned advocate of the Dark Ages,” says, “The superstition of the age supposed the glorified saint to know what was going on in the world; and to feel a deep interest, and to possess a considerable power, in the church militant on earth. I believe that they who thought so are altogether mistaken; and I lament, abhor, and am amazed at the superstition, _blasphemies_, and _idolatries_, which have grown out of that opinion” (Elliott, ii. p. 10). As to the question whether this _continued_ after the judgments brought upon the world by the hordes “loosed on the Euphrates,” or whether they repented and reformed on account of the judgments, we have only to look into the Roman Catholic religion everywhere. Not only did the old practice of “dæmonolatry,” or the worship of departed saints, continue, but _new_ “saints” have been added to the number, and the list of those who are to receive this homage has been continually increasing. Thus in the year 1460, Catharine of Sienna was canonized by Pope Pius II.; in 1482, Bonaventura, the blasphemer,[313] by Sixtus IV.; in 1494, Anselm by Alexander VI. Alexander’s bull, in language more heathen than Christian, avows it to be the pope’s _duty_ thus to choose out, and to hold up the illustrious dead, as their merits claim, for _adoration_ and _worship_.[314]

(2) The statement that _idolatry_ was practised, and continued to be practised, after this invasion:――“Repented not that they should not worship idols of gold, silver, and brass.” On this point, perhaps it would be sufficient to refer to what has been already noticed in regard to the homage paid to the souls of the departed; but it may be farther and more clearly illustrated by a reference to the worship of _images_ in the Romish communion. Anyone familiar with church history will recollect the long conflicts which prevailed respecting the worship of images; the establishment of images in the churches; the destruction of images by the “Iconoclasts;” and the debates on the subject by the council at Hiera; and the final decision in the second council of Nice, in which the propriety of image-worship was affirmed and established. See, on this subject, Bowers’ _History of the Popes_, ii. 98, seq., 144, seq.; Gibbon, vol. iii. pp. 322‒341. The importance of the question respecting _image-worship_ {243} may be seen from the remarks of Mr. Gibbon, iii. 322. He speaks of it as “a question of popular superstition which produced the revolt of Italy, the _temporal power of the popes_, and the restoration of the Roman empire in the West.” A few extracts from Mr. Gibbon――who may be regarded as an impartial witness on this subject――will show what was the popular belief, and will confirm what is said in the passage before us in reference to the prevalence of _idolatry_. “The first introduction of a symbolic worship was in the veneration of the cross, and of relics. The saints and martyrs, when intercession was implored, were seated on the right hand of God; but the gracious, and often supernatural favours, which, in the popular belief, were showered round their tombs, conveyed an unquestionable sanction of the devout pilgrims who visited, and touched, and kissed these lifeless remains, the memorials of their merits and sufferings. But a memorial, more interesting than the skull or the sandals of a departed worthy, is a faithful copy of his person and features delineated by the arts of painting or sculpture. In every age such copies, so congenial to human feelings, have been cherished by the zeal of private friendship or public esteem; the images of the Roman emperors were adored with civil and almost religious honours; a reverence, less ostentatious, but more sincere, was applied to the statues of sages and patriots; and these profane virtues, these splendid sins, disappeared in the presence of the holy men who had died for their celestial and everlasting country. At first the experiment was made with caution and scruple, and the venerable pictures were discreetly allowed to instruct the ignorant, to awaken the cold, and to gratify the prejudices of the heathen proselytes. By a slow, though inevitable progression, the honours of the original were transferred to the copy; the devout Christian prayed before the image of a saint, and the Pagan rites of genuflexion, luminaries, and incense again stole into the Catholic church. The scruples of reason or piety were silenced by the strong evidence of visions and miracles; and the pictures which speak, and move, and bleed, must be endowed with a divine energy, and may be considered as the proper objects of religious adoration. The most audacious pencil might tremble in the rash attempt of defining, by forms and colours, the infinite Spirit, the eternal Father, who pervades and sustains the universe. But the superstitious mind was more easily reconciled to paint and worship the angels, and above all, the Son of God, under the human shape, which on earth they have condescended to assume. The Second Person of the Trinity had been clothed with a real and mortal body, but that body had ascended into heaven; and had not some similitude been presented to the eyes of his disciples, the spiritual worship of Christ might have been obliterated by the visible relics and representations of the saints. A similar indulgence was requisite, and propitious, for the Virgin Mary; the place of her burial was unknown; and the assumption of her soul and body into heaven was adopted by the credulity of the Greeks and Latins. _The use, and even the worship of images, was firmly established before the end of the sixth century_; they were fondly cherished by the warm imagination of the Greeks and Asiatics; _the Pantheon and the Vatican were adorned with the emblems of a new superstition_; but this semblance of idolatry was more coldly entertained by the rude barbarians and the Arian clergy of the West,” vol. iii. p. 323. Again:――“Before the end of the sixth century these images, _made without hands_ (in Greek it is a single word――ἀχειροποίητος), were propagated in the camps and cities of the Eastern empire; _they were the objects of worship_, and the instruments of miracles; and in the hour of danger or tumult their venerable presence could revive the hope, rekindle the courage, or repress the fury of the Roman legions,” vol. iii. pp. 324, 325. So again (vol. iii. p. 340, seq.):――“While the popes established in Italy their freedom and dominion, the images, the first cause of their revolt, were restored in the Eastern empire. Under the reign of Constantine the Fifth, the union of civil and ecclesiastical power had overthrown the tree, without extirpating the root, of superstition. The _idols_, for such they were now held, were secretly cherished by the order and the sex most prone to devotion; and the fond alliance of the monks and females obtained a final victory over the reason and the authority of man.” Under Irene a council was convened――the second council of Nice, or the seventh general council――in which, {244} according to Mr. Gibbon (iii. 341), it was “unanimously pronounced that the worship of images is agreeable to Scripture and reason, to the fathers and councils of the church.” The _arguments_ which were urged in favour of the worship of images, in the council above referred to, may be seen in Bowers’ _Lives of the Popes_, vol. ii. pp. 152‒158, Dr. Cox’s edition. The answer of the bishops in the council to the question of the empress Irene, whether they agreed to the decision which had been adopted in the council, was in these words:――“We all agree to it; we have all freely signed it; this is the faith of the apostles, of the fathers, and of the Catholic church; we all salute, honour, worship, and adore the holy and venerable images; be they accursed who do not honour, worship, and adore the adorable images” (Bowers’ _Lives of the Popes_, ii. 159). As a matter of fact, therefore, no one can doubt that these images were _worshipped_ with the honour that was due to God alone――or that the sin of _idolatry_ prevailed; and no one can doubt that that has been continued, and is still, in the Papal communion.

(3) The next point specified is _murders_ (ver. 21):――“Neither repented they of their murders.” It can hardly be necessary to dwell on this to show that this was strictly applicable to the Roman power, and extensively prevailed, both before and after the Turkish invasion, and that that invasion had no tendency to produce repentance. Indeed, in nothing has the Papacy been more remarkably characterized than in the number of murders perpetrated on the innocent in persecution. In reference to the fulfilment of this we may refer to the following things:――(a) Persecution. This has been particularly the characteristic of the Roman communion, it need not be said, in all ages. The persecutions of the Waldenses, if there were nothing else, show that the spirit here referred to prevailed in the Roman communion, or that the times preceding the Turkish conquest were characterized by what is here specified. In the third Lateran council, A.D. 1179, an anathema was declared against certain dissentients and heretics, and then against the Waldenses themselves in Papal bulls of the years 1183, 1207, 1208. Again, in a decree of the fourth Lateran council, A.D. 1215, a _crusade_, as it was called, was proclaimed against them, and “plenary absolution promised to such as should perish in the holy war, from the day of their birth to the day of their death.” “And never,” says Sismondi, “had the cross been taken up with more unanimous consent.” It is supposed that in this crusade against the Waldenses a million of men perished. (b) That this continued to be the characteristic of the Papacy _after_ the judgments brought upon the Roman world by the Turkish invasion, or that those judgments had no tendency to produce repentance and reformation, is well known, and is manifest from the following things:――(1) The continuance of the spirit of persecution. (2) The establishment of the Inquisition. One hundred and fifty thousand persons perished by the Inquisition in thirty years; and from the beginning of the order of the Jesuits in 1540 to 1580, it is supposed that nine hundred thousand persons were destroyed by persecution. (3) The same spirit was manifested in the attempts to suppress the true religion in England, in Bohemia, and in the Low Countries. Fifty thousand persons were hanged, burned, beheaded, or buried alive, for the crime of heresy, in the Low Countries, chiefly under the Duke of Alva, from the edict of Charles V. against the Protestants to the peace of Chateau Cambresis in 1559. Comp. Notes on Da. vii. 24‒28. To these are to be added all that fell in France on the revocation of the edict of Nantz; all that perished by persecution in England in the days of Mary; and all that have fallen in the bloody wars that have been waged in the propagation of the Papal religion. The number is, of course, unknown to mortals, though efforts have been made by historians to form some estimate of the amount. It is supposed that fifty millions of persons have perished in these persecutions of the Waldenses, Albigenses, Bohemian Brethren, Wycliffites, and Protestants; that some fifteen millions of Indians perished in Cuba, Mexico, and South America, in the wars of the Spaniards, professedly to propagate the Catholic faith; that three millions and a half of Moors and Jews perished, by Catholic persecution and arms, in Spain; and that thus, probably no less than sixty-eight millions and five hundred thousand human beings have been put to death by this one persecuting power. See Dr. Berg’s _Lectures on Romanism_, pp. 6, 7. Assuredly, if this be true, it would be proper to characterize the times here {245} referred to, both before and after the Turkish invasion, as a time when _murders_ would prevail.

(4) The fourth point specified is _sorceries_. It can hardly be necessary to go into detail to prove that _this_ also abounded; and that delusive appeals to the senses; false and pretended miracles; arts adapted to deceive through the imagination; the supposed virtue and efficacy of relics; and frauds calculated to impose on mankind, have characterized those portions of the world where the Roman religion has prevailed, and been one of the principal means of its advancement. No Protestant surely would deny this, no intelligent Catholic can doubt it himself. All that is necessary to be said in regard to this is, that in this, as in other respects, the Turkish invasion, and the judgments that came upon the world, made no change. The very recent imposture of the “holy coat of Treves” is a full proof that the _disposition_ to practise such arts still exists, and that the _power_ to impose on a large portion of the world in that denomination has not died away.

(5) The fifth thing specified is _fornication_. This has abounded everywhere in the world; but the use of the term in this connection implies that there would be something _peculiar_ here, and perhaps that it would be associated with the other things referred to. It is as unnecessary as it would be improper to go into any detail on this point. Anyone who is acquainted with the history of the Middle Ages――the period here supposed to be referred to――must be aware of the wide-spread licentiousness which then prevailed, especially among the clergy. Historians and poets, ballads, and acts of councils, alike testify to this fact.[315] It is to be remarked also, as illustrating the subject, that the dissoluteness of the Middle Ages was closely, and almost necessarily, connected with the worship of the images and the saints above referred to. The character of many of those who were worshipped as saints, like the character of many of the gods of the Pagan Romans, was just such as to be an incentive to every species of licentiousness and impurity. On this point Mr. Hallam makes the following remarks:――“That the exclusive worship of saints, under the guidance of an artful though illiterate priesthood, degraded the understanding, and begat a stupid credulity and fanaticism, is sufficiently evident. But it was also so managed as to loosen the bonds of religion, and pervert the standard of morality” (_Middle Ages_, vol. ii. pp. 249, 250; edit. Phil. 1824). He then, in a note, refers to the legends of the saints as abundantly confirming his statements. See particularly the stories in the _Golden Legend_. So, in speaking of the monastic orders, Mr. Hallam (_Middle Ages_, vol. ii. 253) says: “In vain new rules of discipline were devised, or the old corrected by reforms. Many of their worst vices grew so naturally out of their mode of life that a stricter discipline would have no tendency to extirpate them. Their extreme licentiousness was sometimes hardly concealed by the cowl of sanctity.” In illustration of this we may introduce here a remark of Mr. Gibbon, made in immediate connection with his statement about the decrees respecting the worship of images. “I shall only notice,” says he, “the judgment of the bishops on the comparative merit of image-worship and morality. A monk had concluded a truce with the demon of fornication, on condition of interrupting his daily prayers to a picture that hung in his cell. His scruples prompted him to consult the abbot. ‘Rather than abstain from adoring Christ and his mother in their holy images, it would be better for you,’ replied the casuist, ‘to enter every brothel, and visit every prostitute in the city,’” iii. 341. So again, Mr. Gibbon, speaking of the pope, John XII., says: “His open simony might be the consequence of distress; and his blasphemous invocation of Jupiter and Venus, if it be true, could not possibly be serious. But we read with some surprise that the worthy grandson of Marozia lived in public adultery with the matrons of Rome; that the Lateran palace was turned into a place for prostitution, and that his rapes of virgins and of widows had deterred the female pilgrims from visiting the tomb of St. Peter, lest, in the devout act, they should be violated by his successor,” iii. 353. Again, the system of _indulgences_ led directly to licentiousness. In the pontificate of John XXII., about A.D. 1320, there was invented the celebrated Tax of Indulgences, of which more than forty editions are extant. According to this, _incest_ was to cost, if {246} not detected, _five groschen_; if known and flagrant, _six_. A certain price was affixed in a similar way to adultery, infanticide, &c. See Merle D’Aubigné’s _Reformation_, vol. i. p. 41. And farther, the very _pilgrimages_ to the shrines of the saints, which were enjoined as a penance for sin, and which were regarded as a ground of merit, were occasions of the grossest licentiousness. So Hallam, _Middle Ages_, says: “This licensed vagrancy was naturally productive of dissoluteness, especially among the women. Our English ladies, in their zeal to obtain the spiritual treasuries of Rome, are said to have relaxed the necessary caution about one that was in their own custody,” vol. ii. 255. The celibacy of the clergy also tended to licentiousness, and is known to have been everywhere productive of the very sin which is here mentioned. The state of the nunneries in the middle ages is well known. In the fifteenth century Gerson, the French orator so celebrated at the council of Constance, called them Prostibula meretricum. Clemangis, a French theologian, also contemporary, and a man of great eminence, thus speaks of them: Quid aliud sunt hoc tempore puellarum monasteria, nisi quædam non dico Dei sanctuaria, sed veneris execranda prostibula; ut idem sit hodie puellam velare, quod et publicè ad scortandum exponere (Hallam, _Middle Ages_, ii. 253). To this we may add the fact that it was a habit, not unfrequent, to license the clergy to live in concubinage (see the proof in Elliott, i. 447, note), and that the practice of auricular confession necessarily made “the tainting of the female mind an integral part of Roman priestcraft, and gave consecration to the communings of impurity.” It hardly needs any proof that these practices continued _after_ the invasions of the Turkish hordes, or that those invasions made no changes in the condition of the world in this respect. In proof of this we need refer only to Pope Innocent VIII., elected in 1484 to the Papacy;[316] to Alexander VI., his successor, who at the close of the fifteenth century stood before the world a monster, notorious to all, of impurity and vice; and to the general well-known character of the Romish clergy. “Most of the ecclesiastics,” says the historian Infessura, “had their mistresses; and all the convents of the capital were houses of ill fame.”

(6) The sixth thing specified (ver. 21) is _thefts_; that is, as explained, the taking of the property of others by dishonest arts, on false pretences, or without any proper equivalent. In the inquiry as to the applicability of this to the times supposed to be here referred to, we may notice the following things, as instances in which money was extorted from the people:――(a) The value fraudulently assigned to _relics_. Mosheim, in his historical sketch of the twelfth century, observes: “The abbots and monks carried about the country the carcasses and relics of saints, in solemn procession, and permitted the multitude to behold, touch, and embrace the sacred remains, _at fixed prices_.” (b) The exaltation of the miracle-working merit of particular saints, and the consecration of _new_ saints, and dedication of _new_ images, when the popularity of the former died away. Thus Mr. Hallam says: “Every cathedral or monastery had its tutelar saint, and every saint his legend; fabricated in order to enrich the churches under his protection; by exaggerating his virtues and his miracles, and consequently his power of serving those who paid liberally for his patronage.” (c) The invention and sale of _indulgences_――well known to have been a vast source of revenue to the church. Wycliffe declared that indulgences were mere forgeries whereby the priesthood “_rob men of their money_; a subtle merchandise of Antichrist’s clerks, whereby they magnify their own fictitious power, and instead of causing men to dread sin, encourage men to wallow therein as hogs.” (d) The prescription of _pilgrimages_ as penances was another prolific source of gain to the church that deserves to be classed under the name of _thefts_. Those who made such pilgrimage were expected and required to make an offering at the shrine of the saint; and as multitudes went on such pilgrimages, especially on the jubilee at Rome, the income from this source was enormous. An instance of what was offered at the shrine of Thomas à Becket will illustrate this. Through his reputation Canterbury became the Rome of England. A jubilee was celebrated every fiftieth year to his honour, with plenary indulgence to all such as visited his tomb; of whom one hundred thousand were registered at one time. {247} Two large volumes were filled with accounts of the miracles wrought at his tomb. The following list of the value of offerings made in two successive years to _his_ shrine, the Virgin Mary’s, and Christ’s, in the cathedral at Canterbury, will illustrate at the same time the gain from these sources, and the _relative_ respect shown to Becket, Mary, and the Saviour:――

First Year. £ s. d. Christ’s Altar 3 2 6 Virgin Mary’s 63 5 6 Becket’s 832 12 9

Next Year. Christ’s Altar 0 0 0 Virgin Mary’s 4 1 8 Becket’s 954 6 3

Of the jubilee of A.D. 1300 Muratori relates the result as follows:――“Papa innumerabilem pecuniam ab iisdem recepit; quia die et nocte duo clerici stabant ad altare Sancti Pauli, tenentes in eorum manibus rastellos, rastellantes pecuniam infinitam.” “The pope received from them a countless amount of money; for two clerks stood at the altar of St. Paul night and day, holding in their hands little rakes, collecting an infinite amount of money” (Hallam). (e) Another source of gain of this kind was the numerous testamentary bequests with which the church was enriched――obtained by the arts and influence of the clergy. In Wycliffe’s time there were in England 53,215 fœda militum, of which the religious had 28,000――more than one-half. Blackstone says that, but for the intervention of the legislature, and the statute of mortmain, the church would have appropriated in this manner the whole of the land of England, vol. iv. p. 107. (f) The money left by the dying to pay for _masses_, and that paid by survivors for masses to release the souls of their friends from purgatory――all of which deserve to be classed under the word _thefts_ as already explained――was another source of vast wealth to the church; and the practice was systematized on a large scale, and, with the other things mentioned, deserves to be noticed as a characteristic of the times. It is scarcely necessary to add, that the judgments which were brought upon the world by the Turkish invasions made no essential change, and wrought no repentance or reformation, and hence that the _language_ here is strictly applicable to these things: “Neither _repented they_ of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.”