ART. IV. IS THE EUPHRATES THE TURKISH EMPIRE ?

THE Euphrates, it is said, was the symbol of the Assyrian empire, and therefore it must be the symbol of the Turkish empire; so that when we read of the waters of the Euphrates being dried up, that the way of the kings of the East might be prepared, we are to understand that the reference is to the consumption of the Turkish empire, and the preparation for Israel's restoration. Let us briefly examine the interpretation.

We do not doubt that the Euphrates might symbolise the Assyrian empire in former days. Only let us remember that it is not expressly said to do so anywhere in Scripture. No doubt it is said, "The Lord bringeth upon them the waters of THE RIVER, strong and many, the King of Assyria and all his glory, and he shall come up over all his channels, and overflow all his banks" (Is. viii. 7); but the Euphrates is not named here, and "the river" of the Assyrians was more properly the Tigris. The Euphrates would better symbolise Nebuchadnezzar and his Babylonians; and the Tigris, Sennacherib and his Assyrians.

Not that we mean to question the statement that, in general, "the river" means Euphrates. In many passages it does so, but not in all; and Mr Faber's affirmation, that the Euphrates is always, by way of excellence, denominated simply "the river," is not quite correct, as the following passages will shew:Is. xi. 15, "He shall shake his hand over the river, and smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dry-shod," where "the river" is obviously the Nile.* Again, in Is. xix. 5 we read, “The river shall be wasted and dried up," where the Nile is also meant. Again, in Is. xxiii. 3 we read, "The harvest of the river is her revenue," where the Nile is referred to.

Granting, however, that it is Euphrates that is meant in Is. viii. 7, we think there are difficulties in the way of the common interpretation of this symbol. The proof that Euphrates symbolises the Turkish empire appears to us defective in many points. We are quite aware of the extraordinary unanimity that there is among a large class of prophetical expositors on this point, and that we stand considerably alone; yet we have never been able to appreciate the demonstration for such it is reckoned that is said to have settled this interpretation.

1. It takes necessarily for granted that the first five vials

* Mr Faber takes for granted (p. 24) that in this passage the Euphrates is meant. Other commentators make it the Nile. See Lowth (the elder) on the verse.

have been poured out, and that we are living under the sixth, or just entering on it. This we think very doubtful indeed, not to say incorrect. We ask for evidence that any of the vials have been poured out. Some have felt this difficulty so much, that, instead of proving the outpouring of the vials by internal evidence—that is, by evidence arising out of the symbol and the history compared they have resorted to a very questionable method of reasoning, and argued that, as the Euphrates must mean the Turkish empire, and as we see with our own eyes its present state of exhaustion or desiccation, therefore the first five vials must have been already poured out, and we must be under the sixth, or on the very edge of it. This reasoning does not satisfy. It rather sets suspicion upon edge, and leads us to suspect a fallacy somewhere, or rather a total de

fect of evidence.

2. It assumes that the two witnesses have already appeared, been slain, and ascended up into heaven, their enemies beholding them. This we think as doubtful a position as the former. Without asking or answering the question, "Who are the witnesses?" we are persuaded that no such witness-bearing as that predicted has been yet displayed. We have seen no such death, no such resurrection, no such ascension, and no such great earthquake, as the result of their triumphant ascent into heaven. We do not say that a theory of Apocalyptic exposition might not be so constructed as to avoid this difficulty; but it so happens that in the systems of those who hold the Euphrates to mean the Turkish empire, the witnesses are made previously to arise,—some of these interpreters pointing to the Reformation, others to the French Revolution, as the time of fulfilment.

3. The Turkish empire has nothing to do with the Euphrates, which is about a thousand miles distant from its capital. With far greater propriety might it be symbolised by the Nile or the Danube. That Sennacherib of old should be symbolised by his own river, when rushing down upon Jerusalem and overflowing Immanuel's land, was most natural and apt. But that the Sultan, living at Constantinople, with the sea on one side, and the Danube on the other, should be signified by the far-off Euphrates, seems most inapt and unnatural. Had the Turkish empire been the successor either of the Assyrian or Babylonian, we could have understood the symbolic reference: but when in no sense has the Turk succeeded the Assyrian, or Constantinople become the heir of Nineveh; when, nationally, the Assyrian and the Turk are quite distinct, having no relationship either by blood, or friendship, or alliance, or conquest; when,

locally, they are so widely asunder ;-it seems a straining of all symbolism, or rather a distortion, nay, a subversion of its laws, to set forth the Turkish empire under the figure of the Assyrian Euphrates.

4. The Euphrates was the river of Babylon, and as such must be connected in symbol with Babylon or with whatever Babylon may signify. Wherever Babylon is, there will the Euphrates be. If, then, Constantinople be Babylon, we admit the Euphrates will mean the Turkish empire; if not, then it cannot. Wherever we find the mystical Babylon, there shall we find the mystical Euphrates. To separate the two would be to destroy the whole symbol. Euphrates signified of old the sweeping, rushing, overflowing power of the Assyrian or Babylonian, coming down like a winter-torrent upon Judea: so must the mystical Euphrates mean the sweeping, rushing, overflowing power of the mystical Assyrian or Babylonian. And as, in former ages, the world saw the waters of the river overflowing God's land, till he stretched out his hand and drew them back to their own Mesopotamian channel, so shall the representative of the Assyrian in the latter day overflow the Lord's territory, till Jehovah interpose and dry up the stream, that the way of the kings of the East may be prepared.

5. Ancient Babylon is addressed as "dwelling upon many waters" (Jer. li. 13), evidently referring to the Euphrates; so Babylon the Great is described as "sitting upon many waters" (Rev. xvii. 1); and then these waters are described as meaning "peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues" (xvii. 15), clearly carrying out the symbol of the Assyrian torrent, and shewing us what "the river" must mean, or at least with what empire or city it must be associated.

6. It is difficult to see how the drying up of the Turkish empire is to prepare the way for the kings of the East. On this objection, however, we would not lay great stress, as it relates to events on which we cannot calculate. If, however, Russia were to seize Constantinople, this would (speaking as a man may do) be a far worse evil for Israel than the existence of Turkey, and present one of the greatest conceivable hindrances in the way of Israel's return to Palestine. For, of all Israel's oppressors and enemies, Russia has been one of the sternest and most inveterate. The moment that Russia seizes Constantinople (should that ever be), Palestine will be doubly locked and barred against God's ancient nation. The Turk has been a stern jailer: the Russian will be more so. Turkey may have chastised them with whips: Russia will chastise them with scorpions.

7. "Is it so certain that the Turkish empire is falling or drying up? It has been said to be so. It has looked like it. But this is a peculiar age. It is the age when that which seems strongest suddenly collapses and falls to pieces, while that which is apparently weak and crumbling as suddenly gathers vigour, and rises into power. See how Popery has shot up within these thirty years! It was said to be effete. Its days seemed ended. It lay helpless everywhere over Europe, like an old giant on his deathbed, only writhing in its helplessness. Now it has risen up into strength, and has set its iron hoof upon the kingdoms of Europe. And may it not be so with Turkey, even though she be apparently feeble and withered, especially so if she be the Eastern horn, or Eastern Antichrist? For if it be God's purpose, as manifestly it is, that the Western horn should shoot up into power, after long depression, just ere destruction comes, then is it not likely that there will be a similar resuscitation of the Eastern horn, ere it be finally uprooted? When the Lord comes, he will find the various forms of Antichrist not in decay, but in vigour; and if so, then may we not look for the reviving, instead of the destruction, of the empire and religion of Mohammed?

8. The tenth chapter of Zechariah is a barrier in the way of the commonly-received interpretation of the Euphrates, In it there is a distinct reference to the drying up of the Euphrates, for the purpose of preparing for the restoration of Ephraim They of Ephraim shall be like a mighty man, and their heart shall rejoice as through wine: yea, their children shall see it, and be glad; their heart shall rejoice in the Lord, I will hiss for them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them and they shall increase as they have increased. And I will sow them among the people: and they shall remember me in far countries; and they shall live with their children, and turn again. I will bring them again also out of the land of Egypt, and gather them out of Assyria; and I will bring them into the land of Gilead and Lebanon; and place shall not be found for them, And he shall pass through the sea with affliction, and shall smite the waves in the sea, and all the depths of the river shall dry up; and the pride of Assyria shall be brought down, and the sceptre of Egypt shall depart away." Into the minute exposition of these verses we do not mean to enter, but they do seem to resemble very clearly the passage in Revelation under question; and if so, they give no countenance to the Euphrates meaning the Turkish empire. When Isaiah speaks of the drying up of the Nile for Israel's passage, and when Zechariah speaks of the drying up of the

Euphrates, we are led to the conclusion, that, whatever be the exact sense yet to be unfolded by the event, the barrier which would hinder one section of Israel returning by the way of the south will be taken out of the way, and that barrier which would hinder another section of them from returning by the way of the north and east will in like manner be removed.*

Of Mr Faber's book we shall not say much. On the main point he adduces very little proof. The volume is interesting, like all Mr Faber's works, from the amount of striking facts which they contain; but we are not satisfied. The proof that Euphrates means the Turkish empire has failed. We give a page or two from Mr Faber's preface, that our readers may know exactly the position which he takes up:–

"II. The downfall of the Ottoman power, let it occur when it may, is a matter of vast scriptural importance.

"It will prepare the way for the return of the ten tribes and their return will synchronise with the return of the two tribes.

“We have no right, however, to conclude that the restoration of Israel will immediately follow the downfall of Turkey. A way will be prepared by the removal of an obstacle: but it does not therefore follow that Israel will instantaneously avail itself of the preparation.

"How long a time will intervene between the two events, we are not enabled to determine. This only we know, that the downfall of Turkey will occur at the pouring out of the sixth Apocalyptic vial, but that the restoration of Israel will not take place until the pouring out of the seventh vial.

"Here, again, we may be certain in the abstract, without being certain in the concrete.

"III. The subversion of the Turkish power will evidently occasion, as all seem to anticipate, a fearful general war.

"This war will, I believe, be the last under the present order of things. It will commence, indeed, in Europe: but, at the close of the 1260 years, or at the pouring out of the seventh vial, or at the commencement of the time of the end (for these several matters are synchronical), it will pass into Palestine.

"IV. Of the progress of the Wilful Roman King associated with his ally the False Roman Prophet, a wonderfully minute account is given by Daniel. "He will be opposed, it seems, by the two powers which at that time will be the lords respectively of Egypt and of Syria: whence those two powers are called the King of the South and the King of the North. But the event only can determine with certainty what those two powers will be.

66

They will, however, according to Daniel, be unable to prevent the progress of the Wilful King, when he invades the glorious land: but, notwithstanding this inability, Edom and Moab and the chief of the children of Ammon, whatever may be the states designated by those ancient names, will escape out of his hand. Nevertheless, Egypt will not thus escape and while he has power over its treasures, the Libyans and the African Cuthim will be at his steps. Yet, when disturbed by tidings out of the east and out of the north, he shall plant the tabernacles of his palaces between the seas, in the glorious holy mountain, he will, in exact conformity with other parallel prophecies which

* It is singular that Mr Faber should take no notice of this very remarkable passage in Zechariah, from which the Apocalyptic expression dry up" is evidently taken.