'symbolized by "the four angels which are bound in," or by, "the great river Euphrates." By this Turkish power "the third part of men were killed," or, in other words, by it the Eastern empire. was destroyed. Their countless

cavalry is alluded to by "the number of the army of the horsemen;" and their tremendous artillery by the "fire, and smoke, and brimstone" that "issued out of their mouths." And their continuance as a woe or judgment answers to the term," an hour and a day, and a month, and a year," or either 391 or 396 years; whether we calculate, with Mr. Faber, from Othman, A. D. 1301, to the battle of Zenta, A. D. 1697;—or with Sir Isaac Newton, from Alp-Arslan, A. D. 1063, to the taking of Constantinople, A. D. 1453.

The first question turns upon the meaning attached to the word year. If it be supposed to mean a year containing twelve months of 30 days, then, the year standing for 360 years, the whole period will contain 391. This view of the matter appears most consistent with the received interpretation of other prophetical computations; as that of "a time, times, and a half," which is always taken to mean three years and a half, the years containing twelve months of 30 days, and the whole thus answering to 1260 days (or years). In like manner "forty and two months" are calculated as having each 30 days, and are thus made to be also equal to the same 1260 days, (or years). This mode of calculation,

making the whole period 391 years, is sanctioned by both Sir Isaac Newton and Bishop Newton.

But if the "year" be taken to be a solar year, of 365 days, then the whole term will be made 396 years, and this calculation, which is that of Mr. Mede, is preferred by Mr. Faber. We do not expect such minute exactness in the interpretation of prophecy as would make this small difference important, nor do we feel compelled, by the reasons adduced, to adopt decidedly either one or the other of these calculations. We prefer examining the page of history, with reference to the next question, leaving ourselves at liberty to reckon either 391 or 396 years as the historical facts may seem to dictate: the argument a priori not being absolutely conclusive on either side.

The point of commencement is a question of greater interest. This must be ascertained as far as history enables us, or nothing can be done towards a satisfactory interpretation. Mr. Faber's view is as follows:

Having satisfied himself that the term of the judgment must extend to 396 years, he considers that its commencement may be most satisfactorily fixed at the commencement of the reign of Othman, the first Sultan of the united Seljukian and Ottomanic Turks, and the acknowledged founder of that monarchy which became so terrible a woe to the Roman empire." And this commencement of the reign of Othman he calculates to be dated on June the 9th, A. D. 1301. Then reckoning forward 396 years, he arrives at the year A. D. 1697, at which period was fought the great battle of Zenta, by which the power of Turkey was broken, and from which date she ceased to be formi. dable to Christendom. This coincidence is satisfactory to the learned commentator, and he accordingly fixes upon these dates as the real

eras of the commencement and termination of this, the second woe-trumpet.

This conclusion, however, is not equally satisfactory to our minds. We feel that in this, as in former instances, Mr. Faber has not clung with sufficient tenacity to the exact meaning of the expressions of the inspired text. Nor do the events which mark the years upon which he has fixed, seem to us sufficiently important to be made the epochs of this remarkable woe.

To notice the latter point first. Of how little moment is it, otherwise than as a mere chronological fact, to ascertain precisely at what year and day Othman may be said to commence his reign? His dynusty may indeed be dated from thence, but his power, as a plague to the Eastern empire, dates much further back. If the warfare of the Othman, or Ottoman Turks against the Greek Emperors be especially meant by this woetrumpet, then we might more justly date this warfare from the passage of Ortogrul, the father of Othman, over the Euphrates into Asia Minor, and his engaging in the service of Aladdin, which seems to have taken place about A.D. 1250. And with respect to the battle of Zenta,-although that battle certainly gave a terrible blow to the Turkish empire, it neither destroyed her power, nor changed the character of her dominion, nor relieved either Asia or Europe from its oppression.

But had Mr. Faber kept his eye more fixedly on the plain language of the prediction itself, he would have found his path more clearly marked out. He thinks that this woe-trumpet dates from A.D. 1301, because the dynasty of Othman then first began to reign. There is nothing whatever in the text to lead us to suppose that the dynasty of Othman was in the contemplation of the prophet.So likewise he fixes on A. D. 1697, as the termination of this

woe, because after the battle of Zenta, fought in that year, "the Ottoman power ceased to be formidable to Christendom." But there is nothing said in the text about the Ottoman power being "formidable to Christendom."

Two points are laid down in the text, which seem clearly to fix the events which mark the commencement and termination of this woe. The termination is most distinctly marked, for we are told that the four angels" were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, to slay the third part of men." Does not this language convey the clearest impression, that their task was completed, and their allotted term fulfilled, when the third part of men were slain. And no one disputes that the third part of men were slain when the Eastern empire was overthrown by the taking of Constantinople, A. D. 1453. Thus then we conclude, from the language of the text, that the allotted period of this woe terminated in the year A. D. 1453.

But does the commencing date answer to this supposition. Reckoning 391 or 396 years back, do we come to any historical fact which answers to the loosing of the four angels? The answer to this question must be in the affirmative.

The commencing event of this woe, is the loosing the four angels who were bound in the Euphrates, and their issuing forth to destroy the Eastern empire. By being "bound in the Euphrates," we suppose to mean, not submersion in its waters, but restraint within or beyond its limits. Now the Turks are admitted to be symbolized by these four Angels. When did the Turks pass the Euphrates, and pour their myriads over the Eastern empire?

Mr. Faber, viewing the oitoman Turks as the subject of the whole prophecy, yet interprets the four angels to mean the four contemporary Sultanies

established by the Seljukian Turks, namely, Persia, Kerman, Syria, and Rhoum. But this interpretation has the glaring fault of supposing that Syria and Rhoum were in some sense "bound in the Euphrates," a manifest absurdity. Syria lay between the Euphrates and Asia Minor; and Rhoum, as Mr. Faber himself states, extended from the Euphrates to Constantinople. How the latter power could be described as "bound in the Euphrates," and how it could be "loosed" and sent forth as a woe upon the Eastern empire, if it had been for two centuries possessed of a dominion" extending from the Euphrates to Constantinople," it is not easy to conceive.

But let us go back to the period preceding the foundation of these four Sultanies. Reckoning backwards, 391 years from the fall of Constantinople will bring us, as Sir Isaac Newton has calculated, to about the year A. D. 1063. What were the events then occurring?

Seljuk and his son Togrol Bek had during the thirty years immediately preceding, erected a powerful empire in Persia, and had occupied the throne of the Saracen Caliphs of Bagdad. But their power was still confined to the provinces beyond the Euphrates. Alp Arslan succeeded to this immense dominion in A. D. 1062; and in A. D. 1065, "the Turks broke with great violence into Mesopotamia, Cilicia, and Cappadocia, destroying all with fire and sword."*

* Univ. Hist. Mod. vol. iv. p. 110.

This seems to have been the first serious and sustained attack made by the Turks upon the Eastern empire. It was immediately followed up by the settlement of Soliman, the first sultan of Rhoum, in Asia Minor, who immediately conquered for himself a kingdom, out of the territories of the empire. And thus began a warfare which their successors the Ottoman Turks subsequently continued, and which in about 391 years after, put an end to the Eastern empire. We therefore judge that the Turks generally, including both the Seljukian and Ottoman dynasties,-and not the Ottoman only, as Mr. Faber would argue,- —are intended by the four angels, who were loosed from their confinement in or beyond the Euphrates, and sent forth for the destruction of "the third part of men." And we find that this "loosing" took place about the year A. D. 1062, and that the great result, the overthrow of the Eastern empire, as symbolized by the "slaying of the third part of part of men," -was obtained exactly at the end of the prescribed period of 391 years, by the capture of Constantinople in A. D. 1453.

Why the Turks should be described by the specific number of 'four angels,' we do not attempt decidedly to explain: but Mirkhond and Arabshah distinctly inform us, that the posterity of Turk, the founder of that great family, was divided into four principal tribes ; and this may probably be the true meaning of the figure.

CHRI

MR. EDITOR.-It is generally admitted that many excellent tracts are published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; but it must also be confessed that some of its tracts inculcate doctrines which it is very difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with the doctrines of Holy Scripture. I know that other tracts, such as The Christian Scholar,' and 'Motives and Encouragements to bear Afflictions patiently,' are more open to animadversion than Bishop Gibson's Serious Advice to Persons who have been Sick;' yet as I have been obliged to state objections to the latter, under particular circumstances, and as I am willing, if mistaken, to receive correction, I ask permission to mention briefly the circumstances, and to record my objections in your pages.

I frequently attend at the weekly board of a hospital, where it is the practice to give Bishop Gibson's tract to the patients, on their being discharged; and to recommend its serious advice' to their attentive perusal. A few weeks ago, I read that tract, and meeting with expressions which I consider unscriptural, I declared to two or three other governors that I could not approve of it, as a fit tract to be put into the hands of persons as soon as they are recovered from sickness,' and that I could not but wish a better tract were substituted' in its place. This declaration evidently produced surprise; and as I perceived there would be a powerful opposition against the tract being withdrawn, I was satisfied with suggesting, at the next weekly board, which was more than usually full, that other religious tracts, or another tract, such as Dr. Stonehouse's Spiritual Directions for

the Uninstructed,' be also laid on the table. I also suggested that the selection of tracts might be made from those published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and that a small committee be appointed to make the selection. Of course, I felt the impropriety of entering into any religious discussion at a hospital board, and therefore could not then state all my objections. The other governors said they could see no objection to the tract; it had passed through fifty-seven editions, had been ordered by the hospital for more than fifty years, the orders had been given by good and learned men, and there seemed to them no reason whatever for deviating from the usual practice.

The thanksgiving and prayer found at the end of the tract is not exposed to the objections which are made to the Serious Advice,' and I am persuaded that the Bishop was blessed with truly religious principles, because the prayers composed by him, and met with in other tracts, abound with true Christian doctrines, and are full of a real Christian spirit. It is not improbable that had the difficulties connected with his tract, and which originate chiefly from omissions of highly important truths, been pointed out to him, he would immediately have prevented their continuance.

My objections were communicated in a circular to those governors who were present at the weekly board, when the suggestions were opposed, in nearly the following

terms.

Although the weekly board of a hospital may not be a proper place for the discussion of religious subjects, yet as the reasons why I

deeply regret that Bishop Gibson's tract, entitled, Serious Advice to Persons who have been Sick,' should be the only tract laid on the table of the hospital, to be given to the patients, on their being discharged, are not of a private nature, but are such as greatly influence the minds of others, as well as my own, I take the liberty of communicating those reasons to you; and in communicating them, I am persuaded they will meet with a candid and Christian reception.

The high authorities to which reference must be made are the scriptures of truth, the statutes of the Lord, the law, and the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

66

• It is noted in the scripture of truth: "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ; ""for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." "I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified."

It is also noted in the scripture of truth: "If ye, through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." "We, through the Spirit, wait for the hope of righteousness by faith." "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace," &c.

In Bishop Gibson's Serious Advice,' it does not appear that any express mention is made of that only foundation concerning which the divinely inspired apostles spoke; they who are recovered from bodily sickness are not thereby directed to the only Physician of souls, "to the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world," to Him "whose blood cleanseth us from all sin."

thing that they do," because “ they have no power of themselves to help themselves," &c.

:

But in this Advice' expressions are found which may certainly be misunderstood by the poor and uninstructed man, even if they admit of a qualified explanation such as these- Make amends for former neglects, by your future diligence in the work of your salvation;' and esteeming it the greatest blessing of your recovery, that it gives you time and opportunity to clear the guilt of your former life, and to prepare for your future account by a speedy course of repentance and amendment.' How heartily you will set yourself, on one hand, to root out all evil habits, and on the other hand, to attain the Christian graces and virtues which are wanting in you.'-See pp. 6, 8, 9. of the fifty-ninth edition, revised.

I should find it difficult to explain on protestant and scriptural principles, an expression in chap. 9, where we are told that one reason for which God gives us the blessing of health, is by health, to give us the opportunity of approving ourselves to him, and preparing us for heaven by a steadfast course of obedience and devotion.'

I admit that there are many moral precepts in Bishop Gibson's "Serious Advice,' if morality can be enforced on other than truly christian rules; but when that advice is contemplated in the light of christianity, it is immediately seen to be very defective; it does not speak plainly of Him who " is the author and finisher of our faith, our advo cate with the Father, and the propitiation for our sins; " neither does it speak of our abounding in hope. through the power of the Holy Ghost."

Bishop Gibson's Tract having been laid on the table from the first institution of the Hospital board, cannot surely afford ground for any argument, that spiritual