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.”

CHAPTER X.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

This chapter contains the record of a sublime vision of an angel

which, at this juncture, John saw descending from heaven, disclosing

new scenes in what was yet to occur. The vision is interposed between

the sounding of the sixth, or second woe-trumpet, and the sounding

of the seventh, or third woe-trumpet, under which is to be the final

consummation, ch. xi. 15, seq. It occupies an important _interval_

between the events which were to occur under the sixth trumpet and

the last scene――the final overthrow of the formidable power which had

opposed the reign of God on the earth, and the reign of righteousness,

when the kingdoms of the world shall become the kingdom of God, ch. xi.

15. It is, in many respects, an unhappy circumstance that this chapter

has been separated from the following. They constitute one continued

vision, at least to ch. xi. 15, where the sounding of the seventh and

last trumpet occurs.

The tenth chapter contains the following things:――(1) An angel

descends from heaven, and the attention of the seer is for a time

turned from the contemplation of what was passing in heaven to this new

vision that appeared on the earth. This angel is clothed with a cloud;

he is encircled by a rainbow; his face is as the sun, and his feet

like pillars of fire――all indicating his exalted rank, and all such

accompaniments as became a heavenly messenger. (2) The angel appears

with a small volume in his hand, ver. 2. This book is not closed and

sealed, like the one in ch. v., but was “open”――so that it could be

read. Such a book would indicate some new message or revelation from

heaven; and the book would be, properly, a symbol of something that was

to be accomplished _by_ such an open volume. (3) The angel sets his

feet upon the sea and the land, ver. 2:――indicating by this, apparently,

that what he was to communicate appertained alike to the ocean and the

land――to all the world. (4) The angel makes a proclamation――the nature

of which is not here stated――with a loud voice, like the roaring of a

lion, as if the nations were called to hear, ver. 3. (5) This cry or

roar is responded to by heavy thunders, ver. 3. What those thunders

uttered is not stated, but it was evidently {248} so distinct that

_John_ heard it, for he says (ver. 4) that he was about to make a

record of what was said. (6) John, about to make this record, is

forbidden to do so by a voice from heaven, ver. 4. For some reason, not

here stated, he was commanded not to disclose what was said, but so to

seal it up that it should not be known. The _reason_ for this silence

is nowhere intimated in the chapter. (7) The angel lifts his hand to

heaven in a most solemn manner, and swears by the Great Creator of all

things that the time should not be yet――in our common version, “that

there should be time no longer,” ver. 5‒7. It would seem that just at

this period there would be an expectation that the reign of God was

to begin upon the earth; but the angel, in the most solemn manner,

declares that this was not _yet_ to be, but that it would occur when

the seventh angel should begin to sound. Then the great “mystery”

would be complete, as it had been declared to the prophets. (8) John

is then commanded, by the same voice which he heard from heaven, to

go to the angel and take the little book from him which he held in

his hand, and eat it――with the assurance that it would be found to be

sweet to the taste, but would be bitter afterwards, ver. 8‒10. (9) The

chapter concludes with a declaration that he must yet prophesy before

many people and nations (ver. 11), and then follows (ch. xi.) the

commission to measure the temple; the command to separate the pure

from the profane; the account of the prophesying, the death, and the

resurrection to life of the two witnesses――all preliminary to the

sounding of the seventh trumpet, and the introduction of the universal

reign of righteousness.

The question to what does the chapter refer, is one which it is proper

to notice before we proceed to the exposition. It is unnecessary to say,

that on this question very various opinions have been entertained, and

that very different expositions have been given of the chapter. Without

going into an examination of these different opinions――which would be

a task alike unprofitable and endless――it will be better to state what

seems to be the fair interpretation and application of the symbol,

in its connection with what precedes. A few remarks here, preliminary

to the exposition and application of the chapter, may help us in

determining the place which the vision is designed to occupy. (a) In

the previous Apocalyptic revelations, if the interpretation proposed is

correct, the _history_ had been brought down, in the regular course of

events, to the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, and the complete

overthrow of the Roman empire by that event, A.D. 1453, ch. ix. 13‒19.

This was an important era in the history of the world; and if the

exposition which has been proposed is correct, then the sketches of

history pertaining to the Roman empire in the book of Revelation have

been made with surprising accuracy. (b) A statement had been made

(ch. ix. 20, 21) to the effect that the same state of things continued

subsequent to the plagues brought on by those invasions, which had

existed before, or that the effect had not been to produce any general

repentance and reformation. God had scourged the nations; he had cut

off multitudes of men; he had overthrown the mighty empire that had so

long ruled over the world; but the same sins of superstition, idolatry,

sorcery, murder, fornication, and theft prevailed _afterwards_ that had

prevailed before. Instead of working a change in the minds of men, the

world seemed to be confirmed in these abominations more and more. In

the exposition of that passage (ch. ix. 20, 21) it was shown that those

things prevailed in the Roman church――which then embraced the whole

Christian world――_before_ the invasion of the Eastern empire by the

Turks, and that they continued to prevail _afterwards_: that, in fact,

the moral character of the world was not affected by those “plagues.”

(c) The next event, in the order of _time_, was the Reformation, and

the circumstances in the case are such as to lead us to suppose that

this chapter refers to that. For (1) the order of _time_ demands this.

This was the next important event in the history of the church and

the world after the conquest of Constantinople producing the entire

downfall of the Roman empire; and if, as is supposed in the previous

exposition, it was the design of the Spirit of inspiration to touch

on the great and material events in the history of the church and

the world, then it would be natural to suppose that the Reformation

would come next into view, for no previous event had more deeply or

permanently affected the condition of mankind. (2) The state of the

world, as described in {249} ch. ix. 20, 21, was such as to _demand_

a reformation, or something that should be more effectual in purifying

the church than the calamities described in the previous verse had

been. The representation is, that God had brought great judgments upon

the world, but that they had been ineffectual in reforming mankind. The

same kind of superstition, idolatry, and corruption remained _after_

those judgments which had existed before, and they were of such a

nature as to make it every way desirable that a new influence should

be brought to bear upon the world to purify it from these abominations.

Some such work as the Reformation is, therefore, what we should

naturally look for as the next in order; or, at least, such a work

is one that well fits in with the description of the previous state

of things. (d) It will be found, I apprehend, in the exposition of

the chapter, that the symbols are such as accord well with the great

leading events of the Protestant Reformation; or, in other words,

that they are such that, on the supposition that it was intended to

refer to the Reformation, these are the symbols which would have been

appropriately employed. Of course it is not necessary to suppose that

John understood distinctly _all_ that was meant by these symbols, nor

is it necessary to suppose that those who lived before the Reformation

would be able to comprehend them perfectly, and to apply them with

accuracy. All that is _necessary_ to be supposed in the interpretation

is, (1) that the symbol was designed to be of such a character as to

give some _general_ idea of what was to occur; and (2) that we should

be able, now that the event has occurred, to show that it is fairly

applicable to the event; that is, that on the supposition that this was

designed to be referred to, the symbols are such as would properly be

employed. This, however, will be seen more clearly after the exposition

shall have been gone through.

With this general view of what we should naturally anticipate in this

chapter, from the course of exposition in the preceding chapters, we

are prepared for a more particular exposition and application of the

symbols in this new vision. It will be the most convenient course,

keeping in mind the general views presented here, to explain the

symbols, and to consider their application as we go along.

CHAPTER X.

AND I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven,

clothed with a cloud; and a [317]rainbow _was_ upon his head,

and [318]his face _was_ as it were the sun, and his feet as

pillars of fire:

1. _And I saw._ I had a vision of. The meaning is, that he saw this

subsequently to the vision in the previous chapter. The attention is

now arrested by a new vision――as if some new dispensation or economy

was about to occur in the world. ¶ _Another mighty angel._ He had

before seen the seven angels who were to blow the seven trumpets (ch.

viii. 2), he had seen six of them successively blow the trumpet, he

now sees _another_ angel, different from them, and apparently having no

connection with them, coming from heaven to accomplish some important

purpose before the seventh angel should give the final blast. The angel

is here characterized as a “_mighty_” angel――ἰσχυρὸν――one of strength

and power; implying that the work to be accomplished by his mission

demanded the interposition of one of the higher orders of the heavenly

inhabitants. The coming of an angel at all was indicative of some

divine interposition in human affairs; the fact that he was one of

exalted rank, or endowed with vast power, indicated the nature of the

work to be done――that it was a work to the execution of which great

obstacles existed, and where great power would be needed. ¶ _Clothed

with a cloud._ Encompassed with a cloud, or enveloped in a cloud.

This was a symbol of majesty and glory, and is often represented as

accompanying the divine presence, Ex. xvi. 9, 10; xxiv. 16; xxxiv. 5;

Nu. xi. 25; 1 Ki. viii. 10; Ps. xcvii. 2. The Saviour also ascended

in a cloud, Ac. i. 9; and he will again descend in clouds to judge the

world, Mat. xxiv. 30; xxvi. 64; Mar. xiii. 26; Re. i. 7. Nothing can be

argued here as to the _purpose_ for which the angel appeared, from his

being encompassed with a cloud; nor can anything be argued from it in

respect to the question _who_ this angel was. The fair interpretation

is, that this was one of the angels now represented as sent forth on

an errand of mercy to man, and coming with appropriate {250} majesty

as the messenger of God. ¶ _And a rainbow |was| upon his head._ In ch.

iv. 3 the throne in heaven is represented as encircled by a rainbow.

See Notes on that verse. The rainbow is properly an emblem of peace.

_Here_ the symbol would mean that the angel came not for wrath, but

for purposes of peace; that he looked with a benign aspect on men,

and that the effect of his coming would be like that of sunshine

after a storm. ¶ _And his face |was| as it were the sun._ Bright

like the sun (Notes, ch. i. 16); that is, he looked upon men with

(a) an _intelligent_ aspect――as the sun is the source of light; and

(b) with _benignity_――not covered with clouds, or darkened by wrath.

The _brightness_ is probably the main idea, but the appearance of the

angel would, as here represented, naturally suggest the ideas just

referred to. As an _emblem_ or _symbol_ we should regard his appearing

as that which was to be followed by knowledge and by prosperity. ¶ _And

his feet as pillars of fire._ See Notes on ch. i. 15. In this symbol,

then, we have the following things:――(a) An angel――as the messenger

of God, indicating that some new communication was to be brought to

mankind, or that there would be some interposition in human affairs

which might be well represented by the coming of an angel; (b) the

fact that he was “mighty”――indicating that the work to be done required

power beyond human strength; (c) the fact that he came in a cloud――on

an embassage so grand and magnificent as to make this symbol of majesty

proper; (d) the fact that he was encircled by a rainbow――that the

visitation was to be one of peace to mankind; and (e) the fact that

his coming was like the sun――or would diffuse light and peace.

Now, in regard to the _application_ of this, without adverting to

any other theory, no one can fail to see that, on the supposition that

it was designed to refer to the Reformation, this would be the most

striking and appropriate symbol that could have been chosen. For (a) as

we have seen already, this is the _place_ which the vision naturally

occupies in the series of historical representations. (b) It was at

a period of the world, and the world was in such a state, that an

intervention of this kind would be properly represented by the coming

of an angel from heaven. God had visited the nations with terrible

judgments, but the effect had not been to produce reformation, for the

same forms of wickedness continued to prevail which had existed before.

Notes, ch. ix. 20, 21. In this state of things any new interposition of

God for reforming the world would be properly represented by the coming

of an angel from heaven as a messenger of light and peace. (c) The

great and leading events of the Reformation were well represented by

the _power_ of this angel. It was not, indeed, physical power; but

the work to be done in the Reformation was a _great_ work, and was

such as would be well symbolized by the intervention of a mighty angel

from heaven. The task of reforming the church, and of correcting the

abuses which had prevailed, was wholly beyond any ability which _man_

possessed, and was well represented, therefore, by the descent of

this messenger from the skies. (d) The same thing may be said of

the _rainbow_ that was upon his head. Nothing would better symbolize

the general aspect of the Reformation, as fitted to produce peace,

tranquillity, and joy upon the earth. And (e) the same thing was

indicated by the splendour――the light and glory――that attended the

angel. The symbol would denote that the new order of things would be

attended with light; with knowledge; with that which would be benign

in its influence on human affairs. And it need not be said, to anyone

acquainted with the history of those times, that the Reformation was

preceded and accompanied with a great increase of light; that at just

about that period of the world the study of the Greek language began

to be common in Europe; that the sciences had made remarkable progress;

that schools and colleges had begun to flourish; and that, to a

degree which had not existed for ages before, the public mind had

become awakened to the importance of truth and knowledge. For a full

illustration of this, from the close of the eleventh century and onward,

see Hallam’s _Middle Ages_, vol. ii. pp. 265‒292, ch. ix. part ii. To

go into any satisfactory detail on this point would be wholly beyond

the proper limits of these Notes, and the reader must be referred

to the histories of those times, and especially to Hallam, who has

recorded all that is necessary to be known on the subject. Suffice it

to say, that on the supposition that it was the intention to symbolize

those times, no more appropriate emblem could have {251} been found

than that of an angel whose face shone like the sun, and who was

covered with light and splendour. These remarks will show, that if

it be supposed it was intended to symbolize the Reformation, no more

appropriate emblem could have been selected than that of such an angel

coming down from heaven. If, after the events have occurred, we should

desire to represent the same things by a striking and expressive symbol,

we could find none that would better represent those times.

2 And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his

right foot upon the sea, and _his_ left _foot_ on the earth,

2. _And he had in his hand a little book open._ This is the first

thing that indicated the purpose of his appearing, or that would give

any distinct indication of the design of his coming from heaven. The

general aspect of the angel, indeed, as represented in the former

verse, was that of benignity, and his purpose, as there indicated,

was light and peace. But still there was nothing which would denote

the _particular_ design for which he came, or which would designate

the particular means which he would employ. Here we have, however, an

_emblem_ which will furnish an indication of what was to occur as the

result of his appearing. To be able to apply this, it will be necessary,

as in all similar cases, to explain the natural significancy of the

emblem. (1) _The little book._ The word used here――βιβλαρίδιον――occurs

nowhere else in the New Testament except in ver. 8, 9, 10 of this

chapter. The word βιβλίον――_book_――occurs frequently:――Mat. xix. 7;

Mar. x. 4――applied to a bill of divorcement; Lu. iv. 17, 20; Jn. xx. 30;

xxi. 25; Ga. iii. 10; 2 Ti. iv. 13; He. ix. 19; x. 7. In the Apocalypse

this word is of common occurrence: ch. i. 11; v. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9;

vi. 14, rendered _scroll_; xvii. 8; xx. 12; xxi. 27; xxii. 7, 9, 10,

18, 19. The word was evidently chosen here to denote something that

was peculiar in the size or form of the book, or to distinguish it from

that which would be designated by the ordinary word employed to denote

a book. The word properly denotes a small roll or volume; a little

scroll (Rob. _Lex._, _Pollux._ _Onomast._ 7. 210). It is evident that

something was intended by the diminutive _size_ of the book, or that

it was designed to make a distinction between this and that which

is indicated by the use of the word _book_ in the other parts of the

Apocalypse. It was, at least, indicated by this that it was something

different from what was seen in the hand of him that sat on the throne

in ch. v. 1. That was clearly a large volume; this was so small that

it could be taken in the hand, and could be represented as eaten,

ver. 9, 10. But of what is a book an emblem? To this question there can

be little difficulty in furnishing an answer. A book seen in a dream,

according to Artemidorus, signifies the life, or the acts of him that

sees it (Wemyss). According to the Indian interpreters, a book is the

symbol of power and dignity. The Jewish kings, when they were crowned,

had the book of the law of God put into their hands (2 Ki. xi. 12; 2 Ch.

xxiii. 11); denoting that they were to observe the law, and that their

administration was to be one of intelligence and uprightness. The gift

of a Bible now to a monarch when he is crowned, or to the officer of a

corporation or society, denotes the same thing. A book, as such, thus

borne in the hand of an angel coming down to the world, would be an

indication that something of importance was to be communicated to men,

or that something was to be accomplished by the agency _of a book_. It

was not, as in ch. vi. 2, _a bow_――emblem of conquest; or ver. 4, _a

sword_――emblem of battle; or ver. 5, _a pair of scales_――emblem of

the exactness with which things were to be determined; but it was _a

book_――a speechless, silent thing, yet mighty; not designed to carry

desolation through the earth, but to diffuse light and truth. The

natural interpretation, then, would be, that something was to be

accomplished by the agency of a book, or that a book was to be the

prominent characteristic of the times――as the bow, the sword, and the

balances had been of the previous periods. As to the _size_ of the book,

perhaps all that can be inferred is, that this was to be brought about,

not by extended tomes, but by a comparatively small volume――so that

it could be taken in the hand; so that it could, without impropriety,

be represented as _eaten_ by an individual. (2) _The fact that it was

open_ “a little book _open_”――ἀνεῳγμένον. The word here used means,

properly, to open or unclose in respect to that which was {252} before

fastened or sealed, as that which is covered by a door, Mat. ii. 11;

tombs, which were closed by large stones, Mat. xxvii. 60, 66; a gate,

Ac. v. 23; xii. 10; the abyss, Re. ix. 2――“since in the east pits or

wells are closed with large stones, comp. Ge. xxix. 2” (Rob. _Lex._).

The meaning of this word, as applied to a book, would be, that it was

now opened so that its contents could be read. The word would not

_necessarily_ imply that it had been sealed or closed, though that

would be the most natural impression from the use of the word. Comp.

for the use of the word rendered _open_, Re. iii. 8, 20; iv. 1; v. 2, 3,

4, 5, 9; vi. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12; viii. 1; ix. 2; x. 28; xi. 19; xx. 12.

This would find a fulfilment if some such facts as the following

should occur:――(a) if there had been any custom or arrangement by which

_knowledge_ was kept from men, or access was forbidden to books or to

some one book in particular; and (b) if something should occur by which

that which had before been kept hidden or concealed, or that to which

access had been denied, should be made accessible. In other words, this

is the proper symbol of a diffusion of knowledge, or of _the influence

of A BOOK on mankind_. (3) The fact that it was in the _hand_ of

the angel. All that seems to be implied in this is, that it was now

_offered_, or was ready to be put in possession of John――or of the

church――or of mankind. It was open, and was held out, as it were, for

perusal.

In regard to the _application_ of this, it is plain that, if it be

admitted that it was the design of the author of the vision to refer to

the Reformation, no more appropriate emblem could have been chosen. If

_we_ were now to endeavour to devise an emblem of the Reformation that

would be striking and expressive, we could not well select one which

would better represent the great work than that which is here presented.

This will appear plain from a few considerations:――(1) The great agent

in the Reformation, the moving cause of it, its suggestor and supporter,

was a _book_――the _Bible_. Wycliffe had translated the New Testament

into the English language, and though this was suppressed, yet it

had done much to prepare the people for the Reformation; and all that

Luther did can be traced to the discovery of the Bible, and to the use

which was made of it. Luther had grown up into manhood; had passed from

the schools to the university of Erfurt, and there having, during the

usual four years’ course of study, displayed intellectual powers and an

extent of learning that excited the admiration of the university, and

that seemed to open to his attainment both the honour and emolument

of the world, he appeared to have been prepared to play an important

part on the great drama of human affairs. Suddenly, however, to the

astonishment and dismay of his friends, he betook himself to the

solitude and gloom of an Augustinian monastery. There he found a

_Bible_――a copy of the Vulgate――hid in the shelves of the university

library. Till then he had supposed that there existed no other Gospels

or Epistles than what were given in the Breviary, or quoted by the

preachers.[319] To the study of that book he now gave himself with

untiring diligence and steady prayer; and the effect was to show to

_him_ the way of salvation by faith, and ultimately to produce the

Reformation. No one acquainted with the history of the Reformation can

doubt that it is to be traced to the influence of _the Bible_; that the

moving cause, the spring of all that occurred in the Reformation, was

the impulse given to the mind of Luther and his fellow-labourers by the

study of that one book. It is this well-known fact that gives so much

truth to the celebrated declaration of Chillingworth, that “the Bible

is the religion of Protestants.” If a symbol of this had been designed

before it occurred, or if one should be sought for now that would

designate the actual nature and influence of the Reformation, nothing

_better_ could be selected than that of an angel descending from heaven,

with benignant aspect, with a rainbow around his head, and with light

beaming all around him, holding forth to mankind _a book_. (2) This

book had before been hidden, or closed; that is, it could not till then

be regarded as an _open_ volume. (a) It was in fact known by few even

of the clergy, and it was not in the hands of the mass of the people at

all. There is every reason to believe that the great body of the Romish

clergy, in the time that preceded the Reformation, were even more

ignorant of the Bible than Luther himself was. Many of them were unable

to read; few had access to the Bible; and those who had, drew their

doctrines {253} rather from the fathers of the church than from the

Word of God. Hallam (_Middle Ages_, ii. 241) says: “Of this prevailing

ignorance [in the tenth century and onward] it is easy to produce

abundant testimony. In almost every council the ignorance of the clergy

forms a subject for reproach. It is asserted by one held in 992, that

scarcely a single person could be found in Rome itself who knew the

first elements of letters. Not one priest of a thousand in Spain, about

the age of Charlemagne, could address a letter of common salutation

to another. In England, Alfred declares that he could not recollect

a single priest south of the Thames (the best part of England), at

the time of his accession, who understood the ordinary prayers, or who

could translate the Latin into the mother tongue.” There were few books

of any kind in circulation, and even if there had been an ability to

read, the _cost_ of books was so great as to exclude the great mass

of the people from all access to the sacred Scriptures. “Many of the

clergy,” says Dr. Robertson (_Hist. of Charles V._ p. 14, Harper’s

ed.), “did not understand the Breviary which they were obliged daily to

recite; some of them could scarcely read it.” “Persons of the highest

rank, and in the most eminent stations, could neither read nor write.”

One of the questions appointed by the canons to be put to persons

who were candidates for orders was this, “Whether they could read

the Gospels and Epistles, and explain the sense of them at least

literally?” For the causes of this ignorance see Robertson’s _Hist.

of Charles V._ p. 515. One of those causes was the _cost_ of books.

“Private persons seldom possessed any books whatever. Even monasteries

of considerable note had only one _Missal_. The price of books became

so high that persons of a moderate fortune could not afford to purchase

them. The Countess of Anjou paid for a copy of the _Homilies of Haimon_,

bishop of Alberstadt, two hundred sheep, five quarters of wheat, and

the same quantity of rye and millet,” &c. Such was the cost of books

that few persons could afford to own a copy of the sacred Scriptures;

and the consequence was, there were almost none in the hands of the

people. The few copies that were in existence were mostly in the

libraries of monasteries and universities, or in the hands of some of

the higher clergy. (b) But there was another reason that was still more

efficacious, perhaps, in keeping the people at large from the knowledge

of the Scriptures. It was found in the prevailing views in the Roman

Catholic communion respecting the private use and interpretation of

the sacred volume. Whatever theory may now be advocated in the Roman

Catholic communion on this point, as a matter of fact, the influence

of that denomination has been to withhold the Bible from a free

circulation among the common people. No one can deny that, in the

times just preceding the Reformation, the whole influence of the Papal

denomination was opposed to a free circulation of the Bible, and that

one of the great and characteristic features of the Reformation was the

fact, that the doctrine was promulgated that the Bible was to be freely

distributed, and that the people everywhere were to have access to it,

and were to form their own opinions of the doctrines which it reveals.

(3) The Bible became, at the Reformation, in fact an “open” book. It

was made accessible. It became _the_ popular book of the world――the

book that did more than all other things to change the aspect of

affairs, and to give character to subsequent times. This occurred

because (a) the art of printing was discovered just before the

Reformation, as if, in the providence of God, it was _designed_ then to

give this precious volume to the world; and the Bible was, in fact, the

first book printed, and has been since printed more frequently than any

other book whatever, and will continue to be to the end of the world.

It would be difficult to imagine now a more striking symbol of the art

of printing, or to suggest a better device for it, than to represent an

angel giving an open volume to mankind. (b) The leading doctrine of the

Reformers was, that the Bible is the source of all authority in matters

of religion, and, consequently, is to be accessible to all the people.

And (c) the Bible was the authority appealed to by the Reformers.

It became the subject of profound study; was diffused abroad; and

gave form to all the doctrines that sprang out of the times of the

Reformation. These remarks, which might be greatly expanded, will show

with what propriety, on the supposition that the chapter here refers

to the Reformation, the symbol of _a book_ was selected. Obviously no

other symbol would have been so appropriate; nothing else would have

given so just a view of the leading {254} characteristics of that

period of the world.