Loading...
He shalt plant the tabernacles - He shall make a last stand in Judea, and there shall his power be smitten.
He shall come to his end, and none shall help him - All his confederate and tributary kingdoms, states, and provinces shall desert him and leave that government to come to a shameful end.
In the interpretation of this chapter I have generally followed Bp. Newton, in his most excellent Dissertations on the Prophecies, consulting other eminent authors occasionally.
From the beginning of the chapter to the end of Daniel 11:30; all is very clear and plain, relative to the Grecian, Syrian, and Egyptian histories; from the thirty-first verse to the end, the mode of interpretation is not so satisfactory, in its application to the times since Christ. Yet possibly these alone may be intended; though the whole might be, with considerable ease, applied to the remaining part of the Syrian and Egyptian history. It is a wonderful piece of prophecy, and of great utility to the cause of Divine revelation.
And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace - The loyal tents; the military tents of himself and his court. Oriental princes, when they went forth even in war, marched in great state, with a large retinue of the officers of their court, and often with their wives and concubines, and with all the appliances of luxury. Compare the account of the invasion of Greece by Xerxes, or of the camp of Darius, as taken by Alexander the Great. The military stations of Antiochus, therefore, in this march, would be, for a time, the residence of the court, and would be distinguished for as great a degree of royal luxury as the circumstances would allow. At the same time, they would consist of tabernacles or tents, as those stations were not designed to be permanent. The meaning is, that the royal temporary residence in this expedition, and previous to the close - the end of the whole matter, that is, the death of Antiochus - would be in the mountain here referred to.
Between the seas - That is, between some seas in the “east,” or “north” - for it was by tidings from the east and north that he would be disturbed and summoned forth, Daniel 11:44. We are, therefore, most naturally to look for this place in one of those quarters. The fact was, that he had two objects in view - the one was to put down the revolt in Armenia, and the other to replenish his exhausted treasury from Persia. The former would be naturally what he would first endeavor to accomplish, for if he suffered the revolt to proceed, it might increase to such an extent that it would be impossible to subdue it. Besides, he would not be likely to go to Persia when there was a formidable insurrection in his rear, by which he might be harassed either in Persia, or on his return. It is most probable, therefore, that he would first quell the rebellion in Armenia on his way to Persia, and that the place here referred to where he would pitch his royal tent, and where he would end his days, would be some mountain where he would encamp before he reached the confines of Persia. There have been various conjectures as to the place here denoted by the phrase “between the seas,” and much speculation has been employed to determine the precise location.
Jerome renders it, “And he shall pitch his tent in Apadno between the seas” - regarding the word which our translators have rendered “his palaces” (אפדנו 'apadenô ) as a proper name denoting a place. So the Greek, ἐφαδανῷ ephadanō The Syriac renders it, “in a plain, between the sea and the mountain.” Theodoret takes it for a place near Jerusalem; Jerome says it was near Nicopolis, which was formerly called Emmaus, where the mountainous parts of Judea began to rise, and that it lay between the Dead Sea on the east, and the Mediterranean on the west, where he supposes that Anti-christ will pitch his tent; Porphyry and Calmer place it between the two rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates - the latter supposing it means “Padan of two rivers,” that is, some place in Mesopotamia; and Dr. Goodwin supposes that the British Isles are intended, “which so eminently stand ‹between the seas.‘” Prof. Stuart understands this of the Mediterranean Sea, and that the idea is, that the encampment of Antiochus was in some situation between this sea and Jerusalem, mentioned here as “the holy and beautiful mountain.”
So far as the phrase used here - “between the seas” - is concerned, there can be no difficulty. It might be applied to any place lying between two sheets of water, as the country between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean, or the Dead Sea, and Persian Gulf; or the Caspian and Euxine Seas; or the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf, for there is nothing in the language to determine the exact locality. There is no reason for taking the word אפדנו 'apadenô as a proper name - the literal meaning of it being tent or tabernacle; and the simple idea in the passage is, that the transaction here referred to - the event which would close this series, and which would constitute the “end” of these affairs - would occur in some mountainous region situated between two seas or bodies of water. Any such place, so far as the meaning of the word is concerned, would correspond with this prophecy.
In the glorious holy mountain - That is, this would occur
(a) in a mountain, or in a mountainous region; and
(b) it would be a mountain to which the appellation used here - “glorious holy” - would be properly given.
The most obvious application of this phrase, it cannot be doubted, would be Jerusalem, as being the “holy mountain,” or “the mountain of holiness,” and as the place which the word “glorious” (צבי tsı̂by ) would most naturally suggest. Compare Daniel 11:16, Daniel 11:41. Bertholdt and Dereser propose a change in the text here, and understand it as signifying that “he would pitch his tent between a sea and a mountain, and would seize upon a temple (קדשׁ qôdesh ) there.” But there is no authority for so changing the text. Rosenmuller, whom Lengerke follows, renders it, “between some sea and the glorious holy mountain;” Lengerke supposes that the meaning is, that Antiochus, on his return from Egypt, and before he went to Persia, “pitched his tents in that region, somewhere along the coasts of the Mediterranean, for the purpose of chastising the Jews,” and that this is the reference here. But this, as well as the proposed reading of Dereser and Bertholdt, is a forced interpretation. Gesenius (Lexicon) supposes that the phrase means, “mount of holy beauty,” i. e., Mount Sion. There are some things which are clear, and which the honest principles of interpretation demand in this passage, such as the following:
(a) What is here stated was to occur after the rumour from the east and the north Daniel 11:44 should call forth the person here referred to on this expedition.
(b) It would not be long before his “end,” - before the close of the series, and would be connected with that; or would be the place where that would occur.
(c) It would be on some mountainous region, to which the appellation “glorious holy” might with propriety be applied.
The only question of difficulty is, whether it is necessary to interpret this of Jerusalem, or whether it may be applied to some other mountainous region where it may be supposed Antiochus “pitched his tents” on his last expedition to the East; and near the close of his life. Jerome renders this, Supermontem inclytum, et sanctum; the Greek, “on the holy mountain Sabaein” - σαβαεὶν sabaein The Syriac, “in a plain, between a sea and a mountain, and shall preserve his sanctuary.” The literal meaning of the passage may be thus expressed, “on a mountain of beauty that is holy or sacred.” The essential things are,
(a) that it would be on a mountain, or in a mountainous region;
(b) that this mountain would be celebrated or distinguished for “beauty” - צבי tsebı̂y - that is, for the beauty of its situation, or the beauty of its scenery, or the beauty of its structures - or that it should be regarded as beautiful;
(c) that it would be held as sacred or holy - קדשׁ qôdesh - that is, as sacred to religion, or regarded as a holy place, or a place of worship.
Now it is true that this language might be applied to Mount Sion, for that was a mountain; it was distinguished for beauty, or was so regarded by those who dwelt there (compare Psalm 48:2); and it was holy, as being the place where the worship of God was celebrated. But it is also true, that, so far as the language is concerned, it might be applied to any other mountain or mountainous region that was distinguished for beauty, and that was regarded as sacred, or in any way consecrated to religion. I see no objection, therefore, to the supposition, that this may be understood of some mountain or elevated spot which was held as sacred to religion, or where a temple was reared for worship, and hence, it may have referred to some mountain, in the vicinity of some temple dedicated to idol worship, where Antiochus would pitch his tent for the purpose of rapine and plunder.
Yet he shall come to his end - Evidently in the expedition referred to, and in the vicinity referred to. Though he had gone full of wrath; and though he was preparing to wreak his vengeance on the people of God; and though he had every prospect of success in the enterprise, yet he would come to an end there, or would die. This would be the end of his career, and would be at the same time the end of that series of calamities that the angel predicted. The assurance is more than once given Daniel 11:27, Daniel 11:35; that there was an “appointed” time during which these troubles would continue, or that there would be an “end” of them at the appointed time, and the design was, that when these inflictions came upon the Jews they should be permitted to comfort themselves with the assurance that they would have a termination - that is, that the institutions of religion in their land would not be utterly overthrown.
And none shall help him - None shall save his life; none shall rescue him out of his danger. That is, he would certainly die, and his plans of evil would thus be brought to a close.
The question now is, whether this can be applied to the closing scenes in the life of Antiochus Epiphanes. The materials for writing the life of Antiochus are indeed scanty, but there is little doubt as to the place and manner of his death. According to all the accounts, he received intelligence of the success of the Jewish arms under Judas Maccabeus, and the overthrow of the Syrians, at Elymais or Persepolis (2 Maccabees 9:2), in Persia; and as he was detained there by an insurrection of the people, occasioned by his robbing the celebrated Temple of Diana (Jos. Ant. b. xii. ch. 9: Section 1), in which his father, Antiochus the Great, lost his life; his vexation was almost beyond endurance. He set out on his return with a determination to make every possible effort to exterminate the Jews; but during his journey he was attacked by a disease, in which he suffered excessive pain, and was tormented by the bitterest anguish of conscience, on account of his sacrilege and other crimes. He finally died at Tabae in Paratacene, on the frontiers of Persia and Babylon, in the year 163 B. C, after a reign of eleven years. See the account of his wretched death in 2 Maccabees 9; Jos. Antiq. b. xii. ch. ix.; Section 1; Prideaux, Con. iii. pp. 272,273; Polybius in Excerpta Valesii de Virtutibus et Vitiis, xxxi., and Appian, Syriac. xlvi. 80. Now this account agrees substantially with the prediction in the passage before us in the following respects:
(a) The circumstances which called him forth. It was on account of “tidings” or rumours out of the east and north that he went on this last expedition.
(b) The place specified where the last scenes would occur, “between the seas.” Any one has only to look on a map of the Eastern hemisphere to see that the ancient Persepolis, the capital of Persia, where the rumour of the success of the Jews reached him which induced him to return, is “between the seas” - the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf - lying not far from midway between the two.
(c) The “glorious holy mountain,” or, as the interpretation above proposed would render it, “the mountain of beauty,” sacred to religion or to worship.
(1) the whole region was mountainous.
(2) it is not unlikely that a temple would be raised on a mountain or elevated place, for this was the almost universal custom among the ancients, and it may be assumed as not improbable, that the temple of Diana, at Elymais, or Persepolis, which Antiochus robbed, and where he “pitched his tent,” was on such a place. Such a place would be regarded as “holy,” and would be spoken of as “an ornament,” or as beautiful, for this was the language which the Hebrews were accustomed to apply to a place of worship.
I suppose, therefore, that the reference is here to the closing scene in the life of Antiochus, and that the account in the prophecy agrees in the most striking manner with the facts of history, and consequently that it is not necessary to look to any other events for a fulfillment, or to suppose that it has any secondary and ultimate reference to what would occur in far-distant years.
In view of this exposition, we may see the force of the opinion maintained by Porphyry, that this portion of the book of Daniel must have been written after the events occurred. He could not but see, as anyone can now, the surprising accuracy of the statements of the chapter, and their applicability to the events of history as they had actually occurred; and seeing this, there was but one of two courses to be taken - either to admit the inspiration of the book, or to maintain that it was written after the events. He chose the latter alternative; and, so far as can be judged from the few fragments which we have of his work in the commentary of Jerome on this book, he did it solely on the ground of the accuracy of the description. He referred to no external evidence; he adduced no historical proofs that the book was written subsequent to the events; but he maintained simply that an account so minute and exact could not have been written before the events, and that the very accuracy of the alleged predictions, and their entire agreement with history, was full demonstration that they were written after. The testimony of Porphyry, therefore, may be allowed to be a sufficient proof of the correspondence of this portion of the book of Daniel with the facts of history; and if the book was written before the age of Antiochus Epiphanes, the evidence is clear of its inspiration, for no man will seriously maintain that these historic events could be drawn out, with so much particularity of detail, by any natural skill, three hundred and seventy years before they occurred, as must have been the case if written by Daniel. Human sagacity does not extend its vision thus far into the future with the power of foretelling the fates of kingdoms, and giving in detail the lives and fortunes of individual men. Either the infidel must dispose of the testimony that Daniel lived and wrote at the time alleged, or, as an honest man, he should admit that he was inspired.
Verse 45
We have now traced the prophecy of the 11th of Daniel down, step by step, and have thus far found events to fulfill all its predictions. It has all been wrought out into history except this last verse. The predictions of the preceding verse having been fulfilled within the memory of the generation now living, we are carried by this one past our own day into the future; for no power has yet performed the acts here described. But it is to be fulfilled; and its fulfillment must be accomplished by that power which has been continuously the subject of the prophecy from the 40th verse down to this 45th verse. If the application to which we have given the preference in passing over these verses, is correct, we must look to Turkey to make the move here indicated.DAR 281.4
And let it be noted how readily this could be done. Palestine, which contains the “glorious holy mountain,” the mountain on which Jerusalem stands, “between the seas,” the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean, is a Turkish province; and if the Turk should be obliged to retire hastily from Europe, he could easily go to any point within his own dominions to establish -his temporary headquarters, here appropriately described as the tabernacles, movable dwellings, of his palace; but he could not go beyond them. The most notable point within the limit of Turkey in Asia, is Jerusalem.DAR 282.1
And mark, also, how applicable the language to that power: “He shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” This expression plainly implies that this power has previously received help. And what are the facts? — In the war against France in 1798-1801, England and Russia assisted the sultan. In the war between Turkey and Egypt in 1838-1840, England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia intervened in behalf of Turkey. In the Crimean war in 1853-1856, England, France, and Sardinia supported the Turks. And in the late Russo-Turkish war, the great powers of Europe interfered to arrest the progress of Russia. And without the help received in all these instances, Turkey would probably have failed to maintain her position. And it is a notorious fact that since the fall of the Ottoman supremacy in 1840, the empire has existed only through the sufferance of the great powers of Europe. Without their pledged support, she would not be long able to maintain even a nominal existence; and when that is withdrawn, she must come to the ground. So the prophecy says the king comes to his end and none help him; and he comes to his end, as we may naturally infer because none help him, — because the support previously rendered is withdrawn.DAR 282.2
Have we any indications that this part of the prophecy is soon to be fulfilled? As we raise this inquiry, we look, not to dim and distant ages in the past, whose events, so long ago transferred to the page of history, now interest only the few, but to the present living, moving world. Are the nations which are now on the stage of action, with their disciplined armies and their multiplied weapons of war, making any movement looking to this end?DAR 283.1
All eyes are now turned with interest toward Turkey; and the unanimous opinion of statesmen is, that the Turk is destined soon to be driven from Europe. Some years since, a correspondent of the New York Tribune, writing from the East, said: “Russia is arming to the teeth... to be avenged on Turkey... Two campaigns of the Russian army will drive the Turks out of Europe.” Carleton, formerly a correspondent of the Boston Journal, writing from Paris under the head of “The Eastern Question,” said: —DAR 283.2
“The theme of conversation during the last week has not been concerning the Exposition, but the ‘Eastern Question.’ To what will it grow? Will there be war? What is Russia going to do? What position are the Western powers going to take? These are questions discussed not only in the cafés and restaurants, but in the Corps Legislatif. Perhaps I cannot render better service at the present time than to group together some facts in regard to this question, which, according to present indications, are to engage the immediate attention of the world. What is the ‘Eastern Question’? It is not easy to give a definition; for to Russia it may mean one thing, to France another, and to Austria still another; but sifted of every side issue, it may be reduced to this, — the driving of the Turk into Asia, and a scramble for his territory.”DAR 283.3
Again he says: —DAR 283.4
“Surely the indications are that the sultan is destined soon to see the western border of his dominions break off, piece by piece. But what will follow? Are Roumania, Servia, Bosnia, and Albania to set up as an independent sovereignty together, and take position among the nations? or is there to be a grand rush for the estate of the Ottoman? But that is of the future, a future not far distant.”DAR 283.5
Shortly after the foregoing extracts were written, an astonishing revolution took place in Europe. France, one of the parties, if not the chief one, in the alliance to uphold the Ottoman throne, was crushed by Prussia in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. Prussia, another party, was too much in sympathy with Russia to interfere with her movements against the Turk. England, a third, in an embarrassed condition financially could not think of entering into any contest in behalf of Turkey without the alliance of France. Austria had not recovered from the blow she received in her preceding war with Prussia; and Italy was busy with the matter of stripping the pope of his temporal power, and making Rome the capital of the nation. A writer in the New York Tribune remarked that if Turkey should become involved in difficulty with Russia, she could count on the prompt “assistance of Austria, France, and England.” But none of these powers, nor any others who would be likely to assist Turkey, were at the time referred to in any condition to do so, owing principally to the sudden and unexpected humiliation of the French nation, as stated above.DAR 284.1
Russia then saw that her opportunity had come. She accordingly startled all the powers of Europe in the fall of the same memorable year, 1870, by stepping forth and deliberately announcing that she designed to regard no longer the stipulations of the treaty of 1856. This treaty, concluded at the termination of the Crimean war, restricted the warlike operations of Russia in the Black Sea. But Russia must have the privilege of using those waters for military purposes, if she would carry out her designs against Turkey; hence her determination to disregard that treaty just at the time when none of the powers were in a condition to enforce it.DAR 284.2
The ostensible reason urged by Russia for her movements in this direction, was, that she might have a sea front and harbors in a warmer climate than the shores of the Baltic; but the real design was against Turkey. Thus the Churchman, of Hartford, Conn., in an able article on the present “European Medley,” states that Russia in her encroachments upon Turkey, “is not merely seeking a sea frontier, and harbors lying on the great highways of commerce, unclosed by arctic winters, but that, with a feeling akin to that which inspired the Crusades, she is actuated by an intense desire to drive the Crescent from the soil of Europe.”DAR 284.3
This desire on the part of Russia has been cherished as a sacred legacy since the days of Peter the Great. That famous prince, becoming sole emperor of Russia in 1688, at the age of sixteen, enjoyed a prosperous reign of thirty-seven years, to 1725, and left to his successors a celebrated “last will and testament,” imparting certain important instructions for their constant observance. The 9th article of that “will” enjoined the following policy: —DAR 285.1
“To take every possible means of gaining Constantinople and the Indies (for he who rules there will be the true sovereign of the world); excite war continually in Turkey and Persia; establish fortresses in the Black Sea; get control of the sea by degrees, and also of the Baltic, which is a double point, necessary to the realization of our project; accelerate as much as possible the decay of Persia; penetrate to the Persian Gulf; re-establish, if possible, by the way of Syria, the ancient commerce of the Levant; advance to the Indies, which are the great depot of the world. Once there, we can do without the gold of England.”DAR 285.2
The eleventh article reads: “Interest the House of Austria in the expulsion of the Turks from Europe, and quiet their dissensions at the moment of the conquest of Constantinople (having excited war among the old states of Europe), by giving to Austria a portion of the conquest, which afterward will or can be reclaimed.”DAR 285.3
The following facts in Russian history will show how persistently this line of policy has been followed: —DAR 285.4
“In 1696, Peter the Great wrested the Sea of Azov from the Turks, and kept it. Next, Catharine the Great won the Crimea. In 1812, by the peace of Bucharest, Alexander I obtained Moldavia, and the prettily-named province of Bessarabia, with its apples, peaches, and cherries. Then came the great Nicholas, who won the right of the free navigation of the Black Sea, the Dardanelles, and the Danube, but whose inordinate greed led him into the Crimean war, by which he lost Moldavia, and the right of navigating the Danube, and the unrestricted navigation of the Black Sea. This was no doubt a severe repulse to Russia, but it did not extinguish the designs upon the Ottoman power, nor did it contribute in any essential degree to the stability of the Ottoman empire. Patiently biding her time, Russia has been watching and waiting, and in 1870, when all the Western nations were watching the Franco-Prussian war, she announced to the powers that she would be no longer bound by the treaty of 1856, which restricted her use of the Black Sea; and since that time that sea has been, as it was one thousand years ago, to all intents and purposes, a mare Russicum.” — San Francisco Chronicle.DAR 285.5
Napoleon Bonaparte well understood the designs of Russia, and the importance of her contemplated movements. While a prisoner on the island of St. Helena, in conversation with his governor, Sir Hudson Lowe, he gave utterance to the following opinion: —DAR 286.1
“In the course of a few years, Russia will have Constantinople, part of Turkey, and all of Greece. This I hold to be as certain as if it had already taken place. All the cajolery and flattery that Alexander practiced upon me was to gain my consent to effect that object. I would not give it, foreseeing that the equilibrium of Europe would be destroyed. Once mistress of Constantinople, Russia gets all the commerce of the Mediterranean, becomes a naval power, and then God knows what may happen. The object of my invasion of Russia was to prevent this, by the interposition between her and Turkey of a new state, which I meant to call into existence as a barrier to her Eastern encroachments.”DAR 286.2
Kossuth, also, took the same view of the political board, when he said: “In Turkey will be decided the fate of the world.”DAR 286.3
The words of Bonaparte, quoted above, in reference to the destruction of “the equilibrium of Europe,” reveal the motive which has induced the great powers to tolerate so long the existence on the Continent of a nation which is false in religion, destitute of humanity, and a disgrace to modern civilization. Constantinople is regarded, by general consent, as the grand strategic point of Europe; and the powers have each sagacity or jealousy enough to see, or think they see, the fact that if any one of the European powers gains permanent possession of that point, as Russia desires to do, that power will be able to dictate terms to the rest of Europe. This position no one of the powers is willing that any other power should possess; and the only apparent way to prevent it is for them all to combine, by tacit or express agreement, to keep each other out, and suffer the unspeakable Turk to drag along his sickly Asiatic existence on the soil of Europe. This is preserving that “balance of power” over which they are all so sensitive. But this cannot always continue. “He shall come to his end and none shall help him.” The sick man seems determined to reduce himself most speedily to such a degree of offensiveness that Europe will be obliged to drive him into Asia, as a matter of safety to its own civilization.DAR 287.1
When Russia, in 1870, announced her intention to disregard the treaty of 1856, the other powers, though incapable of doing anything, nevertheless, as was becoming their ideas of their own importance, made quite a show of offended dignity. A congress of nations was demanded, and the demand was granted. The congress was held, and proved, as everybody expected it would prove, simply a farce so far as restraining Russia was concerned. The San Francisco Chronicle of March, 1871, had this paragraph touching “The Eastern-Question Congress:” —DAR 287.2
“It is quite evident that, as far as directing or controlling the action of the Muscovite government is concerned, the congress is little better than a farce. England originated the idea of the congress, simply because it afforded her an opportunity of abandoning, without actual dishonor, a position she had assumed rather too hastily, and Russia was complacent enough to join in the ‘little game,’ feeling satisfied that she would lose nothing by her courtesy. Turkey is the only aggrieved party in this dextrous arrangement. She is left face to face with her hereditary and implacable enemy; for the nations that previously assisted her, ostensibly through friendship and love of justice, but really through motives of self-interest, have evaded the challenge so openly flung into the arena by the Northern Colossus. It is easy to foresee the end of this conference. Russia will get all she requires, another step will be taken toward the realization of Peter the Great’s will, and the sultan will receive a foretaste of his apparently inevitable doom — expulsion from Europe.”DAR 287.3
From that point the smoldering fires of the “Eastern Question” continued to agitate and alarm the nations of Europe, till in 1877 the flames burst forth anew. On the 24th of April in that year, Russia declared war against Turkey, ostensibly to defend the Christians against the inhuman barbarity of the Turks, really to make another trial to carry out her long-cherished determination to drive the Turk from Europe. The events and the results of that war of 1877-1878, are of such recent date that the general reader can easily recall them. It was evident from the first that Turkey was overmatched. Russia pushed her approaches till the very outposts of Constantinople were occupied by her forces. But diplomacy on the part of the alarmed nations of Europe again stepped in to suspend for awhile the contest. The Berlin Congress was held Jan. 25, 1878. Turkey agreed to sign conditions of peace. The conditions were that the straits of the Dardanelles should be open to Russian ships; that Russians should occupy Batoum, Kars, and Erzeroum; that Turkey should pay Russia £20,000,000 sterling (nearly $100,000,000), as a war indemnity; and that the treaty should be signed at Constantinople. In making this announcement, the Allgemeine Zeitung added: “The eventual entry of the Russians into Constantinople cannot longer be regarded as impracticable.”DAR 288.1
The Detroit Evening News of Feb 20, 1878, said: —DAR 288.2
“According to the latest version of the peace conditions, Turkey — besides her territorial losses, the surrender of a few ironclads, the repairs of the month of the Danube, the reimbursement of Russian capital invested in Turkish securities, the indemnity to Russian subjects in Constantinople for war losses, and the maintenance of about 100,000 prisoners of war — will have to pay to Russia, in round figures, a sum equivalent to about $552,000,000 in our money. The unestimated items will easily increase this to six hundred million. With her taxable territory reduced almost to poverty-stricken Asia Minor, and with her finances at present in a condition of absolute chaos, it is difficult to see where she is going to get the money, however ready her present rulers may be to sign the contract.DAR 288.3
“The proposition amounts to giving the czar a permanent mortgage on the whole empire, and contains an implied threat that he may foreclose at any time, by the seizure of the remainder of European Turkey. In this last aspect, all Europe has a vital interest in the matter, and particularly England, even if the conditions were not in themselves calculated to drive English creditors crazy, by destroying their last hope of ever getting a cent of their large investments in Turkish bonds. It makes Russia a preferred creditor of the bankrupt Porte, with the additional advantage of being assignee in possession, leaving creditors with prior claims out in the cold.”DAR 289.1
The following paragraph taken from the Philadelphia Public Ledger, August, 1878, sets forth an instructive and very suggestive exhibit of the shrinkage of Turkish territory within the past sixty years, and especially as the result of the war of 1877: —DAR 289.2
“Any one who will take the trouble to look at a map of Turkey in Europe dating back about sixty years, and compare that with the new map sketched by the treaty of San Stefano as modified by the Berlin Congress, will be able to form a judgment of the march of progress that is pressing the Ottoman power out of Europe. Then, the northern boundary of Turkey extended to the Carpathian Mountains, and eastward of the River Sereth it embraced Moldavia as far north nearly as the 47th degree of north latitude. That map embraced also what is now the kingdom of Greece. It covered all of Servia and Bosnia. But by the year 1830 the northern frontier of Turkey was driven back from the Carpathians to the south bank of the Danube, the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia being emancipated from Turkish domination, and subject only to the payment of an annual tribute in money to the Porte. South of the Danube, the Servians had won a similar emancipation for their country. Greece also had been enabled to establish her independence. Then, as recently, the Turk was truculent and obstinate. Russia and Great Britain proposed to make Greece a tributary state, retaining the sovereignty of the Porte. This was refused, and the result was the utter destruction of the powerful Turkish fleet at Navarino, and the erection of the independent kingdom of Greece. Thus Turkey in Europe was pressed back on all sides. Now, the northern boundary, which was so recently at the Danube, has been driven south to the Balkans. Roumania and Servia have ceased even to be tributary, and have taken their place among independent states. Bosnia has gone under the protection of Austria, as Roumania did under that of Russia in 1829. ‘Rectified’ boundaries give Turkish territory to Servia, Montenegro, and Greece. Bulgaria takes the place of Roumania as a self-governing principality, having no dependence on the Porte, and paying only an annual tribute. Even south of the Balkans the power of the Turk is crippled, for Roumelia is to have ‘home rule’ under a Christian governor. And so again the frontier of Turkey in Europe is pressed back on all sides, until the territory left is but the shadow of what it was sixty years ago. To produce this result has been the policy and the battle of Russia for more than half a century; for nearly that space of time it has been the struggle of some of the other ‘powers’ to maintain the ‘integrity’ of the Turkish empire. Which policy has succeeded, and which failed, a comparison of maps at intervals of twenty-five years will show. Turkey in Europe has been shriveled up in the last half century. It is shrinking back and back toward Asia, and, though all the ‘powers’ but Russia should unite their forces to maintain the Ottoman system in Europe, there is a manifest destiny visible in the history of the last fifty years that must defeat them.”DAR 289.3
A correspondent of the Christian Union, writing from Constantinople under date of Oct. 8, 1878, said: —DAR 291.1
“When we consider the difficulties which now beset this feeble and tottering government, the only wonder is that it can stand for a day. Aside from the funded debt of $1,000,000,000 upon which it pays no interest, it has an enormous floating debt representing all the expenses of the war; its employees are unpaid; its army has not been disbanded or even reduced; and its paper money has become almost worthless. The people have lost heart, and expect every day some new revolution or a renewal of the war. The government does not know which to distrust most, its friends or its enemies.”DAR 291.2
Since 1878 the tendency of all movements in the East has been in the same direction, foreboding greater pressure upon the Turkish government in the direction of its expulsion from the soil of Europe. The occupation of Egypt by the English, which took place in 1883, is another step toward the inevitable result, and furnishes a movement which the Independent, of New York, ventures to call “the beginning of the end.”DAR 291.3
In 1895 the world was startled by the report of the terrible atrocities inflicted by the Turks and Kurds upon the Armenians. Reliable reports show that many thousands have been slaughtered, with every circumstance of fiendish cruelty. The nations through their ambassadors protest and threaten; the sultan promises, but does nothing. He evidently has not the disposition, if he has the power, to stay the tide of blood. Fanatical Moslems seem seized with a frenzy to destroy all the Armenian men and take their wives and children to slavery or a more lamentable fate. At this writing (January, 1897) thousands of widows and orphans are said to be wandering in the mountains of Armenia, perishing of cold and hunger; and they stretch out despairing hands to England and America to save them from total destruction. A thrill of horror has run through Christendom, and a cry is rising from all lands, Let the Turk be driven out, and come to his end! And yet the selfishness of the nations, and their jealousy of each other, restrain their hands from arresting this carnival of slaughter and ruin, by unseating the terrible Turk. How long, O Lord, how long?DAR 291.4
Thus all evidence goes to show that the Turk must soon leave Europe. Where will he then plant the tabernacles of his palace? In Jerusalem? That certainly is the most probable point. Newton on the Prophecies, p. 318, says: “Between the seas in the glorious holy mountain must denote, as we have shown, some part of the Holy Land. There the Turk shall encamp with all his powers; yet he ‘shall come to his end, and none shall help him,’ — shall help him effectually, or deliver him.”DAR 292.1
Time will soon determine this matter; and it may be but a few months. And when this takes place, what follows? — Events of the most momentous interest to all the inhabitants of this world, as the next chapter immediately shows.DAR 292.2
Note. — Since the foregoing was written, the situation in Turkey has grown continually worse. Armenian massacres have continued, and between January and September, 1896, rebellion against the Turk broke out in Crete and Macedonia. Besides this, fanatical Moslems themselves show signs of dissatisfaction with the sultan, and threaten revolution. Serious disturbance has just taken place (September, 1896) in Constantinople, resulting in the slaughter of some two thousand Armenians. The crown-heads of Europe are now in consultation in regard to the disposition of the affairs of Turkey, with the prospect that some determination will be reached, and thus the only obstacle in the way of the dissolution of the Turkish empire be removed.DAR 292.3