years, it coincides precisely with that of history; and falls but little short even in respect of days. In effect the prophetic period expired near about the middle of the siege; just before Sultan Mahomet, by transporting his ships across the isthmus of Galata, secured the success which had momentarily before begun to be despaired of by the Turkmans. It was not merely the bisecting point to the brief seven weeks that it lasted; but nearly marked its critical turning-point, of success to the Turkmans, of destruction to the Greeks.

Such is the result of our investigation. And surely it must be deemed most satisfactory. For my own part, when I consider the length of the period embraced by the prophecy, scarce less than 400 years,-and when I consider further, that of all symmetrical chronological formulæ, such as symbolic prophecy alone makes use of,1 there does not seem to be one that could express the interval with anything like the same exactness as that before us, I cannot but partake of Mede's feeling of admiration, and marvel greatly at it. "The hour and day and month and year!" Singular surely must that period have appeared at the first to the Evangelist; exprest in its mystical form, and (as I suppose) from the inner temple. Singular yet more must it appear to us now that it has been evolved and explained by history ; and indeed as one never to be forgotten by the christian student.

2

There is just one thing that I must not omit, ere I conclude this head and chapter. I mean to impress upon

1 e. g. a time, times, and half a time :-forty-two months;-1260 days ;70 weeks. The only way of expressing the period before us more or as exactly as the Apocalyptic formula, is by computation of the whole in hours. The actual interval amounts to 9512 prophetic hours, the Apocalyptic to 9511. Would the former rude expression have accorded with scripture use or beauty? 2 Mede, like his follower Dr. Keith, dates indeed from the epoch of the inauguration of Thogrul Beg: and is, like him, incorrect in his calculation, although in a different way. He knew the true year, A. H. 449, of the inauguration, from Elmakin, but not the month; and supposing it might be the very beginning of that year of the Hegira, inferred a coincidence between the historic period thus commenced, and the prophetic, which did not exist. But this is a comparatively unimportant difference. The main point is the reference of the commencement of

æra.

the reader's mind how remarkable and contrary to all human probability, after once the Turkman woe had been let loose, was the protraction of its accomplishment of the work of destruction assigned it to this far distant Ere 40 years had elapsed from Thogrul Beg's inauguration, Constantinople and its empire were on the very verge of ruin by the Seljukian Turks and nothing less than an almost miraculous intervention seemed capable of averting it. But the intervention occurred. The crusades from western Europe, however ultimately ineffective in Syria, crippled the Seljukian power, so as for 200 years to aid in upholding against it the Greek empire. Then the Moguls under Zenghis yet further crippled, and delayed the resuscitation in its strength of the Turkish power.—And after it had at length risen up in all its pristine vigor, under the Amuraths and the Bajazets of the new Othman dynasty, and when, some fifty years and more before the hour, day, month, and year had come to a completion, Constantinople and the empire were again on the verge of destruction;-when the chivalry of the west, vainly intervening, had been broken in the battle of Nicopolis, and the victorious Bajazet thus addressed the emperor; "Our invincible scymitar has reduced almost all Asia, and many and large countries in Europe, excepting only the city of Constantinople resign that city, or tremble for thyself and thine unhappy people; "-when, I say, the slaying of the third part of men seemed thus imminent, full half a century before the prophetic period had elapsed that fixed it, what was there that could occur to prevent the catastrophe? Behold, from the far frontiers of China, Tamerlane was brought against him. "The savage," says Gibbon, was forced to relinquish his prey by a stronger savage than himself: and by the vic

66

the period to the Turkman's connection with the caliphate under Thogrul Beg. Of this, Mede is the originator. And certainly it was due to Mede, on the part of Dr. Keith, to have so mentioned him.

The Latins weakened indeed the Greek empire; but not so as to interfere with their delaying its destruction by the Turks. So Gibbon, xi. 105; "The first crusade prevented the fall of the declining empire."

tory of Tamerlane the fall of Constantinople was delayed about fifty years."-But when the predicted period had elapsed, and the Sultan Mahomet was pressing the siege, like some of his predecessors before him, then no intervention occurred to delay the catastrophe, either from the east or west, from the crusaders of Christendom or the savage warriors of Tartary. On the dialplate in heaven, the pointing of the shadow-line told that the fatal term had expired, the hour and day and month and year. Then could no longer the fate of the unhappy Greeks be averted. And the artillery of the Othmans thundered irresistibly against Constantinople: and the breach was stormed: and the city fell—and, amidst the shouts of the conquering Turkmans from the Euphrates, and the dying groans of the last Constantine, the third of the men were slain, the Greek empire was

1 Gibbon xi. 460, xii. 26. The date of Bajazet's defeat by Tamerlane was July 28, 1402; the place Angora.

2 It is the observation of Aristotle, Polit. iv. 14; ǹ Yap πоλITEIA BIOS TIS Est TNS TONEWS-the same figure of life being applied by him to political constitution aud independence as here.

So Hosea xiii. 1; " When Ephraim offended, then he died." So too the Christian father Jerome, of Rome and its empire, when first threatened by Alaric; Roma vitam auro redimit."

APPENDIX TO VOL. I.

No. I.

NOTICE OF PROFESSOR M. STUART'S ARGUMENT FOR THE NERONIC DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE.

(See Page 52.)

Subsequently to the printing of the greater part of my Second Edition, Professor Moses Stuart's Apocalyptic Commentary came into my hands; the result, it is said, of some twenty years' thought and labour: and I carefully looked into it to see by what new evidence or argument he might seek to justify the Neronic date, on which in fact his system is mainly based. The argument occupies in his first Volume from p. 263 to p. 284. The greater part of the ground I have gone over; but there are some points And I think it right, as the subject is so important, the advocate on the side I oppose so well known for ability and learning, and a movement of mind among some of the more literary in this country, especially of the dissenting body, been lately manifested in unison with Professor Stuart,2 to put the reader in full possession of his argument and evidence. It is of course divided into evidence external and internal. It is only the former that will for the present occupy us any considerable time.

new.

I. Professor Stuart's external or historical evidence.

1. And here, in his opening summary,3 he admits distinctly in the

1 So the Bibliotheca Sacra.

2 I infer this from an Article in the Eclectic Review of Dec. 1844, entitled Theory of Prophetic Interpretation, followed by another in Kitto's Biblical Cyclopædia on the word Revelation; both, it seems, by Dr. Davidson of the Lancashire Independent College: and from an Article entitled "On the Date of the Apocalypse," in the Biblical Review and Congregational Magazine of March 1846.

3 P. 265.