# Mahometanism in its Relation to Prophecy/Chapter 5

PROPHECIES OF DANIEL RELATING TO MAHOMETANISM AND THE FUTURE DESTRUCTION OF THE TURKISH EMPIRE.
Let us now turn our attention to the sublime prophecies contained in the eleventh chapter of the Prophet Daniel, ushered in as they are by the magnificent and terrible description of the angelic vision seen by this same holy Daniel on the banks of the river Tigris. But before we come to the substance of this remarkable prophecy, let us pause for a moment to observe one or two expressions of the inspired writer, which undoubtedly throw a great light on the controversy which has unhappily lasted so long between Catholics and Protestants.
Now in the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first verses of the tenth chapter, we find that the glorious angel, who had appeared to Daniel on the banks of the Tigris, speaks of a conflict he had with the prince of the Persians, and that he also mentions the coming of the prince of the Greeks, after which he adds these remarkable words: "But I will tell thee what is set down in the scripture of truth: ​and none is my helper in all these things, but Michael your prince:" that is, none is my helper but the Archangel Michael, who is "your prince," that is the prince, or guardian angel, of the Jewish people or Church of God.
Now it is impossible for even the most superficial reader, not to remark in all these words of Daniel, how completely he uses in regard to angels all those same expressions, which, when employed by Catholic writers in reference to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints, are at once charged with an idolatrous tendency by our Protestant opponents. It is not here the place to enter into the question, how far it is proper to apply to the saints expressions which Scripture applies to angels; but this we will say, as angels are after all mere creatures, not one whit less so than the saints, if it be improper to attribute to the latter (as Protestants affirm) any interference or active agency in human affairs because they are creatures, and such an attribute would seem to interfere with the prerogative of the one Almighty Creator, it is quite clear that it would be equally inconsistent to do so in the case of the angels, they also being, like the saints, mere creatures. But, on the other hand, from these passages, and a large number of others in sacred Scripture, it is quite clear ​that such an active agency and interference in human affairs is attributed to the angels: how then can any man be justified in accusing the Church of idolatry for attributing a similar power and a similar office to our Blessed Lady and the saints? Now even admitting, for the sake of argument, that because such power is attributed in Scripture to the angels, it does not therefore follow that we have any right to attribute similar powers to the saints, still it would equally remain an absurdity to term it idolatrous in us to do so: it might be gratuitous, it might be unauthorised, but how could it be idolatrous?
On the other hand, when we see this mighty power attributed by Scripture to the angels,—when we find one of the greatest angels appearing to Daniel on the banks of the Tigris, and distinctly telling him that he has been helped in his endeavours to aid the Jewish people by another angel, namely, the Angel Michael, either we must conclude that such phraseology is perfectly consistent with the supremacy of the one true God, or that the Bible itself teaches idolatry; but, as we suppose no Protestant would dare to accept the latter alternative, are we not justified in affirming that the Catholic practice of invoking the prayers and the assistance of God's saints is strictly in ​analogy with the whole teaching of the Old Testament in reference to angels? Believing, as the Gospel teaches us, that the saints of God, when translated to paradise, are made "like unto the angels" (Luke xx. 36), how could the Catholic Church but conclude that she must believe them to be invested with the attributes of angels, and therefore with a similar power of mediation and active interference in the affairs of men?
I know that the force of this argument has been endeavoured to be eluded by affirming that whenever such power is attributed in Scripture to angels, it is Christ, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, elsewhere termed in Scripture "the Angel of Great Counsel," that is intended, and not angels in the strict sense of the term. But, then, this interpretation is entirely gratuitous, contrary to the plain meaning of Holy Writ, and only adopted for the confessed and obvious purpose of meeting a difficulty. Such an interpretation is repugnant to the known interpretation of the synagogue of old, as may be seen at length in the learned writings of Rabbi Drack, while it contradicts that of the Primitive Church;and in the present passage we have just quoted ​from Daniel (x. 21), it would involve its upholder in the most ridiculous and illogical contradictions. If the angel that appeared on the banks of the Tigris was Christ, who was Michael? and if Michael was Christ, what will the Protestant objector say to the mighty assumptions of power claimed by the other angel?—at least they could not both be Christ, and one of them, at all events, must prove fatal to the Protestant objection.
But to return from this digression to the prophecy. It is the opinion of the learned Protestant interpreter of prophecy, the great Sir Isaac Newton, that the eleventh and twelfth chapters of Daniel are a kind of commentary on his eighth chapter; and in this opinion many very learned Catholic interpreters concur with him. A work of great ability, published at Paris in 1840, and dedicated to Pope Gregory XVI., entitled, "La Fin des Temps," coincides with this view; and although we must confess that it is impossible to read the eleventh chapter of Daniel and not to see that the interpretation of it is involved in many difficulties and great obscurity, still there are parts of it which most evidently supply a commentary on the prophecy of the Little Horn, as given in the eighth chapter.
In discussing the bearings of this eleventh ​chapter of Daniel upon Mahometan history, we shall not enter into any historical disquisition concerning that part of it which all commentators, whether Catholic or Protestant, admit as referring to the immediate successors of Alexander the Great, especially to Antiochus Epiphanes, such a disquisition being foreign to our purpose; but we shall at once pass on to that which they all equally agree refers to Antichrist.
The thirty-fifth verse of the eleventh chapter appears to wind up that portion of the prophecy which more properly belongs to Alexander's immediate successors, the Syrian kings on the one hand, and the Egyptian kings on the other. And it intimates a transition to another subject, to the history of another great monarch, who was destined to arise and to reign upon the same platform or stage.
The transition is ushered in by these remarkable words: "And some of the learned shall fall, that they may be tried, and may be chosen, and made white, even to the appointed time, because yet there shall be another time." These words are understood by commentators to refer to the persecution of the servants of God amongst the Jewish people, that took place under the tyrannical government of Antiochus Epiphanes; and when the text tells us that ​"some of the learned shall fall," it refers to the martyrdom of the Maccabees, and that gradual trial and preparation of the Jewish Church that preceded and ushered in the advent of the Messiah, who appeared "at the appointed time." And when it goes on to add, "for yet there shall be another time," it indicates, that as there was to be a time of redemption and grace, when the Messiah should redeem His people, so there should also be afterwards "another time," or a time of malediction and judgment, wherein Antichrist should come to establish his false system and empire in opposition to the kingdom of Christ.
And so the next verse (verse thirty-sixth) introduces us at once to that terrible personage whom the blessed St. Jerome, in his interpretation, without hesitation pronounces to be Antichrist. We have already demonstrated who Antichrist is, that he is no other than Mahomet, and we have also demonstrated when he was to appear on earth, and if we examine the description in the prophecy now before us, we shall see how wonderfully it agrees with what history records concerning Mahomet.
"And the king shall do according to his will;" that is, a king shall arise who shall do all things according to his own strong and ​impious will. The will of God he shall transgress by setting up a new religion, which he shall falsely pretend to be the revelation of God Himself; "and he shall be lifted up." What could be greater than the exaltation, both temporal and spiritual, to which Mahomet lifted himself? “He shall magnify himself against every god." This he did, whether we refer the expression "every god" to the heathen gods, against whose worship he declared war, or whether we refer it to the temporal rulers of all other nations, against whom Mahomet declared that he was sent to make war, and to subdue them to his faith and to his temporal dominion. "And he shall speak great things against the God of gods." Now surely, when we reflect on the blasphemies which Mahomet vomited forth against our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the God of gods, we must at once admit that these words also were most literally and wonderfully fulfilled in him. "And he shall prosper till the wrath be accomplished;" that is, the reign of Mahomet shall continue until the anger of God against His people, that is, the Jews, shall be accomplished, and until the anger of God against His people, composed of the converted Gentiles, shall have been appeased. But when this happy day arrives, then shall Mahomet's pros​perity cease, and his name shall be utterly rooted out.
In the thirty-seventh verse, the Prophet continues his description of Antichrist; "And he shall make no account of the God of his fathers." This was fulfilled when Mahomet renounced the worship of the true God, the ever adorable Trinity in Unity, who was the God of his forefathers (however little He was known or worshipped by them) as He is the God of all the earth, the only true God, blessed for evermore. "And he shall follow the lust of women." Our version, in this rendering of the sacred text, follows the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate; and it is not possible (admitting this to be the accurate rendering of the original) to look for a more accurate description of Mahomet or Mahometanism. But the Anglican version following the Hebrew text renders it thus: "Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any God." And Bishop Newton, with his usual hatred of Catholicity, and his dexterous ingenuity in turning the words of Scripture against the Church of God, interpreting, as we do also, this portion of Daniel's prophecy as relating to Antichrist, applies it to what he considers to be that Antichrist, namely, the assumed corruptions of the Greek and Latin Churches; ​and so he applies these words to the doctrine of celibacy, and to that blessed and angelical chastity which is the brightest gem in the character of God's saints, and which entitles them, as the blessed St. John declares, "to follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth, for these are virgins."—(Apocalypse xiv. 4.)
And yet Bishop Newton is forced to admit that there is evidently some fault in the Hebrew text, and he owns his preference of the Septuagint, although with an inconsistency quite remarkable he substitutes a reading of his own instead of both, But if even the Hebrew reading, as followed by the Anglican Bible were correct, it appears to me that it would only still more go to express the insatiable lust of Mahomet and his followers; for when it says that he shall make no account of the desire of women, we are forcibly reminded of a common expression in our own language, which describes an extreme propensity to any evil habit, or complete success im any undertaking by a similar phrase. When we say that a man "makes nothing" of drinking so many bottles of wine, we do not mean to say that he is a total abstainer from such a liquor, but quite the contrary. So when the Hebrew text says "that he shall not regard the desire of women," it means that Mahomet would treat ​women as if they were brute beasts, and not as rational creatures, almost denying their future existence, and representing them as the mere slaves of man, and the instruments of his basest passions; while we are also carried on to the contemplation of the unnatural lusts which it is notorious are more freely indulged in by Mahometans than by any other religionists.
But there is every reason to believe that the reading given in the Vulgate, agreeing as it does with the Septuagint, a version, which our Lord Himself sanctioned, is a more accurate rendering of the Divine original: and admitting this, no one can for a moment doubt how literally Mahomet and his blasphemous system have fulfilled the words of the sacred text.
"And he shall not regard any gods." we have already shown in what sense it is true, that Mahomet "made no account of the God of his fathers," that is, of the true God, we now come to another feature of his system, which, in one sense, may be said to be a good feature, namely, his enmity to the polytheism of idolaters. "He shall not regard any God." No ​one can open the Koran, or its remarkable commentary, the history of Mahometanism, and not at once recognise the graphic portrait of his religious system, which the sacred text here gives us. There never was a system, true or false, that proclaimed a more deadly war than Mahometanism has ever proclaimed against the false gods of the heathen, or against any representations, whether of sacred or profane subjects. Mahometanism is essentially iconoclastic, and it has done great things in rooting out the gross polytheism of Pagan nations, and yet we cannot say that the words of the text, accurately as they portray this feature of Antichrist, convey any commendation upon him for his hypocritical zeal in this matter. In fact, what commendation is due to him who substitutes one system of imposture for another? ​The zeal of the Mahometan against heathen gods and idols, was nothing but a change of tactics on the part of the Evil Spirit. Satan had seen his dominion over mankind notably impaired by the successful preaching of the Gospel; idolatry had been rooted out of vast continents, and the knowledge of the one true God had been everywhere diffused; as the Psalmist had foretold, "the sound" of the Apostles "had gone forth into all lands," and the result had been, what our blessed Saviour described, "I beheld Satan," said our Lord, "like lightning falling from heaven," that is, from his usurped dominion in the mystic heaven. Under such circumstances, it was quite natural that Satan, in his last and greatest effort to regain that usurpation, should have recourse to some new expedient, suited to the exigencies of the moment. Idolatry was everywhere discredited, and so in ushering into existence the Alcoran of the False Prophet, and his attempt to supplant the faith of Christ by the creed of Antichrist, he simulated a wonderful zeal for the unity of the Godhead, and an inextinguishable hatred for the superstitions of polytheism. But alas! the zeal and the hatred were alike hypocritical; it was an angel of darkness in the garb of an Angel of Light, from whose inspirations they sprang: Satan ​would fain rob Jesus Christ of the glory of having subjugated idolatry, and under pretence of zeal for the unity of God, he denied the ever blessed and adorable Trinity, in whose name Christ had commanded all men to be baptized, and on the throne of the everlasting Godhead he raise himself: for it is Satan, not the true Triune God of revelation, that Mahometanism adores. It is Satan simulating the true God, "similis ero Altissimo," as the Prophet had foretold of him. Heretofore he had substituted idols in place of the true God, now he substitutes himself: how naturally, then, does this fact bring us to the concluding words of the thirty-seventh verse, "For he shall rise up against all things." The Alcoran subverted every existing system, whether true or false. It subverted truth, to make way for falsehood; it subverted all pre-existing falsehoods to make way for a new, a greater, and a more destructive falsehood, than any that had ever heretofore deceived the children of men.
And now the Prophet goes on to describe the character of this falsehood, and so he rouses the attention of the reader by the emphatic use of the word "But." "But," says Daniel, "he shall worship the god Maozim in his place; and a god whom his fathers knew not, shall he worship with gold, and silver, and precious ​stones, and things of great price, And he shall do this to fortify Maozim with a strange god, whom he hath acknowledged, and he shall increase glory, and shall give them power over many, and shall divide the land gratis."
In these words, we have the prediction of the characteristic features of Mahometanism, the very name of its Liturgic symbols, and of its palmy prosperity and possession of the fairest provinces of the earth.
"He shall worship the god Maozim." What is Maozim? St. Jerome informs us that "Maozim," or "Mahuzzim," as Bishop Newton writes it after the Hebrew, signifies "strongholds," "forces." Now, the god of Mahomet was emphatically a god of forces, of strongholds, of physical force: his implement, both for extending his spiritual and temporal dominion, was one and the same instrument, the sword. Not the sword of the Spirit, but that sword of which Jesus Christ had declared, "Put up again the sword into its place, for all that take the sword shall perish by the sword. Now, Mahomet's god was the god of the sword, even the god Maozim, or, as the Hebrews read it, the god Mahuzzim.
And who is so blind, as not to see further in this remarkable word, whether the "Maozim" ​of the Septuagint, or the "Mahuzzim" of the Hebrew, a still more remarkable and wonderful coincidence between it and the name of the False Prophet? Write it Mahomet, Mohammed, or Muhammed, it cannot fail to remind us of Maozim and Mahuzzim. And if we would pursue such coincidences a little further, we may find an equally striking one between the Maozim and Mahuzzim of the Prophet, and the Muezzim of the Mahometan mosques.
This coincidence had often struck the writer of this treatise, but he was glad to find that it is recognised and enforced by the learned author of a very remarkable French work on Prophecy, "La Fin des Temps," to which the reader has been already referred; in page xiii of his Preface it is emphatically alluded to, as also in the body of that learned work. And if the reader will procure that work, he will sec how ably the writer treats it.
Bishop Newton, as usual, endeavours to turn the word to his own purpose, which, we need not say, is one hostile to Catholicity. According to him, Mahuzzim signifying forces or fortifications, and Antichrist signifying the pope, as in the Greek and Latin Churches ​saints and angels are sometimes mystically saluted, as the spiritual forces that encamp around the children of God, or as the fortifications and bulwarks of the city of God (in our humble judgment, a very appropriate as well as a very poetical phrase in their regard}, the "worship of the God Maozim" signifies the worship of God joined with that of mediatorial saints and angels.
But, unfortunately for Bishop Newton's interpretation, while it is obviously neither a literal nor a direct one, it militates quite as much against Scripture, as it does against Catholicism.
Does not Scripture inform us that God "has given His angels charge over us to keep us in all our ways?"—(Psalm xc. 11.) Do we not read in the thirty-third Psalm, at the eighth verse, the following words, "The angel of the Lord shall encamp round about them that fear Him; and shall deliver them"? And not to multiply quotations, is not the Bible from beginning to end literally filled with statements of a similar nature concerning these blessed spirits; statements that assuredly give full warrant to the Catholic Church to salute them, as she does, as the guardians and protectors of men, under the overruling Providence and Sovereignty of God? And if ​Scripture justifies such expressions in reference to the angels, it also justifies them equally in reference to the blessed saints reigning with Christ in glory. Is it not our Lord Himself, who tells the faithful soul of His servant, as he welcomes it to the joys of Paradise, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful in a little, thou shalt have power over ten cities"?—(Luke xix. 17.) Then let Bishop Newton write as he pleases about the blasphemy of the Church in accepting the declaration of her Divine Master, and in recognising the blessed angels and saints as the patrons and guardians of men, as the protectors and rulers of cities and provinces, his heretical interpretations are silenced by the Gospel of Christ, and in spite of his sneers, England will still be, what she was, the dowry of Mary, the kingdom of St. George; and France, and Spain, and Italy, and Russia, and Greece will continue to recognise their patron saints and their guardian angels, when the heresy of Luther and Newton shall be forgotten, and their descendants shall have returned to the faith of their forefathers, the Catholic faith!
He then who was predicted by Daniel to "worship the God Maozim in his place" is Mahomet, not the pope; and "Maozim" re​presents the evil forces of Mahometanism, not the invisible bulwarks of the city of God.
And when the Prophet tells us that this God, is a God "whom his fathers knew not," he refers to that, which we have already pointed out, that the god of Mahomet is not the true God, but a god invented by his own imagination, inspired as it was by Satan. The true God had already revealed Himself to man, as One God in Three Persons, a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of one nature and substance. This revelation of God Mahomet impiously denied, and he substituted for it a creation of his own. The god therefore of Mahomet is not the God of Revelation, but a false god, and when we examine in the Alcoran the character of this god, as He reveals himself in that impious book both in his commands and in what he permits, it is clear that this god is no other than Satan himself, as I have already said in reference to one of the preceding verses of this same chapter.
But the Prophet continues, "And he shall worship him with gold and silver, and precious stones, and things of great price." In these words the Prophet emphatically predicts two of the most remarkable features of Mahometanism: the first is the personal unity of the God it worships, "he shall worship Him;" and ​the second is the magnificence of the places in which it worships him. All travellers concur in their description of the wonderful splendour of the Mahometan temples or mosques. It is scarcely possible to conceive anything to surpass them in grandeur or richness of decoration. They are resplendent with gold and silver, with the most costly marbles and alabaster, with all sorts of precious stones and woods of great price. The Alhambra in its ruins fills the Christian traveller with wonder and admiration, while the mosques of Cairo and Mecca, along with innumerable others, realise all the grandest descriptions of the Arabian Nights. In the single city of Cairo there are no fewer than seven hundred mosques, and some of them of vast dimensions. Well might the Prophet add, "And he shall do this to fortify Maozim with a strange God, whom he hath acknowledged." For if anything could fascinate the imagination of a people, he at least has made use of it for that purpose.
And when, in the thirty-ninth verse of this same eleventh chapter, Daniel winds up his prophecy of Mahomet by saying, "he shall divide the land gratis," he tells us, what history bears him out in witnessing, that the land, namely the Holy Land, the land flowing with milk and honey, and those other fair lands, ​that next to Palestine emphatically merited the appellation of THE LAND, for they were the fairest and most fertile provinces of the earth, were to become his prey: and so contemptuously would he treat them, that he would divide them gratis, as if they were worth nothing, to his rapacious followers.
And worth nothing have all these noble lands become beneath the blighting influence and the desolating sway of Mahometanism, Read what all travellers tell you of all the lands beneath the sceptre of Mahometanism, of their deplorable degradation, and then judge what the gratuitous division of them by Antichrist has wrought!
Think what Greece, what Asia Minor, what Palestine and Egypt, what Persia and Armenia were in old times, under the benignant influences of the old Greek and Roman civilization on the one hand, and of Christianity on the other; think of the glorious and splendid cities, of the cultivation that made that vast portion of the earth one garden, of the influence of the Church, that studded it over with churches and monasteries, and with a progeny of innumerable saints in all ranks of men, and you will be better able to estimate the work of physical and moral destruction achieved by the Man of Sin, and what was ​meant by the Prophet, when he foretold the division of this land amongst his barbarian satellites!
But it is enough; the devil himself could do nothing worse; and it is time that God should interpose to bring such a desolation to an end. And so the Prophet now turns to a brighter theme, and a more cheering prospect.
"And at the time prefixed," says the Holy Ghost by the mouth of Daniel, "the King of the South shall fight against him." Now who is the King of the South? The south is a relative term; what is south of one place may be north of another; when, therefore, the Prophet talks of the King of the South, he may refer to a king who should reign over lands to the south of that land where the Prophet saw his vision, or he may mean to the south of the country which he immediately afterwards characterizes as "the north," over which would reign "the King of the North," or to the south of the land over which Antichrist himself should reign.
Now we must observe that Daniel ushers in this consoling prophecy by saying "at the time prefixed," that is, the time prefixed for Antichrist's destruction, in other words, towards the latter end of the 1260 years, which were prefixed for the continuance of his dominion. At that time the "King of the South shall fight ​against him;" that is, a king who shall rule over what is to the south of that other territory which is characterized in the same prophecy as the dominion of the King of the North.
Now it is a fact, whatever be the relations between Mahometanism and this prophecy, that we arc not far off from the conclusion of the twelve hundred and sixtieth year of Mahometan history. And it is equally a fact, that notwithstanding the disgraceful jealousies of the Christian powers, a kingdom has been created in the south of Europe, the very existence of which is a triumph over Mahometanism—the kingdom of Greece. In Africa, still further south, the French nation have wrested another large territory from the Mahometan dominion, the vast province of Algeria, and no one can doubt that the same noble power threatens the existence of the empire of Morocco.
What then Daniel foresaw the nineteenth century has accomplished, The King of the South has fought against Mahomet. But it is not in the south alone that Mahomet is to suffer, "The King of the North shall come against him like a tempest, with chariots, and horsemen, and a great navy, and he shall enter into the countries, and shall destroy, and shall pass through. And he shall enter into the ​glorious land, and many shall fall, and these only shall be saved out of his hand, Edom, and Moab, and the principality of the children of Ammon. And he shall lay his hand upon the lands, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. And he shall have power over the treasures of gold, and of silver, and all the precious things of Egypt; and he shall pass through Lybia and Ethiopia. And tidings out of the East and out of the North shall trouble him: and he shall come with a great multitude to destroy and slay many. And he shall fix his tabernacle Apadno between the seas, upon a glorious and holy mountain: and he shall come even to the summit thereof, and no man shall aid him."
In these remarkable words does the Prophet foretell the utter destruction of Mahometanism, and we here find that this great work is to be achieved by a potentate whom Daniel designates as "the King of the North."
It is evident that this prophecy has not yet been accomplished, it still remains to be fulfilled. Its accomplishment may have commenced, but we may not live to sec its completion. One great northern potentate, the Russian Emperor, has already been at war with the representative of the False Prophet. When Russia conquered the Crimea and other provinces bordering on the Black Sea, the inroads ​of the King of the North evidently commenced. The prophecy tells us where they will end,—not until the King of the North is master of the whole Turkish empire, with all its feudal dependencies enumerated in the text. The King of the North will make himself master of all that Turkey reigns over, "save only Edom, and Moab, and the principality of the children of Ammon." That portion of the Turkish empire, for some reason decreed by God, will escape the grasp of the Northern Eagle. But Palestine, and Egypt, and Lybia, and Ethiopia will witness the passage of his victorious troops. His course, however, will not be one of uninterrupted victory; "tidings out of the East and out of the North" are to trouble him; his armies may sustain a temporary check from Asiatic tribes on the one hand, or the more northern portion of his dominions may receive a shock from the successful aggression of hostile powers, jealous of his increasing empire. But the Prophet warns us that the fate of Mahometanism is sealed; "the King of the North" "shall come with a great multitude to destroy and slay many. And he shall fix his tabernacle Apadno between the seas, upon a glorious and holy mountain: and he shall come even to the summit thereof, and no man shall help him." Such, if it may be ​permitted to express an intimate conviction of the meaning of prophecy, is the wonderful destiny of this great northern potentate. I hazard no predictions of my own; I fix no dates, but no man can arrest the onward course of time, or gainsay the decrees of the Almighty.
The King of the North, when the hour marked from all eternity has arrived, will fix his tabernacle, Apadno, that is, his royal palace (for such is the force of the Hebrew term), between the seas, upon a glorious and holy mountain, that is, as an Anglican writer, Forster, has clearly demonstrated, at Constantinople. It is true, that that learned and interesting writer takes a totally different view from myself upon the prophecies in question; but that the glorious and holy mountain between the seas signifies Constantinople, he entertains no doubt whatever. Nor do I; and sooner or later I believe the King of the North will reign in that imperial city, and rescue the ancient churches of Oriental Christendom from the dominion of Antichrist. But it is clear from the language of the Prophet that this great achievement will be the result of the immense exertions of the King of the North, single-handed, and unaided by other powers; for the Scripture con​cludes the prediction of it with these significant words, "And no man shall aid him." That is, he shall achieve it in spite of the opposition he may encounter from all other powers.
It is not for us to discuss the diplomatic questions connected with the present struggle, which France and England have entered into in order to uphold the Turkish empire in its integrity, a purpose, which they declare to be essential to the balance of power in Europe. We have nothing to do with such questions, when attempting to interpret the predictions of prophecy. This attempt we lay before our readers, not because it exhibits what English politicians might desire, but because we conscientiously believe it to be the only one consistent with the prophetic statement itself. And much as others may deprecate the ascendancy of Russia over the Turkish provinces referred to in the prophecy, and deeply as we feel the duty that loyalty to our sovereign imposes upon us, we at least can descry no necessarily evil consequences for the future of our own beloved country from such a result. Why should England decline, because Russia eventually subdued Turkey, any more than that destruction should have ensued to Russia, or to Austria, from the Anglo-British conquest of Hindostan? We believe that there never was ​a more absurd chimera than the diplomatic nonsense we so often hear about the balance of power: but be this as it may, and although some may shudder at the thought, it seems most clearly foretold in this prophecy, that the Turkish empire is to be devoured by the Great Northern Eagle.
* ↑ L'Harmonie entre l'Eglise et la Synagogue, 12 vols. 8vo. Paris, 1844.
* ↑ In reference to this feature of Mahometaniam if is remarkable, what I find referred to by the learned Jesuit Father Salmeron, in his commentary on St, Paul's second Epistle to the Thessalonians, tom. xvi. p. 391, that St. Cyril, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, discoursing concerning Antichrist, uses these words: "Idola scilicet odio habiturus est Antichrisius, ut IPSE in templo Dei sedeat." And the blessed St. Ephrem, the Syrian, in his sermon on Antichrist, says of him, "quod aspernabitur Idola." While we find that St. Irenæus declared, that whereas St. Paul foretold of the Man of Sin, "that he would sit in the Temple of God," that temple would be in the literal Jerusalem, "Sedebit in Templo Dei, scilicet Hierosolymitano." (Irenæi, lib. 5.) And St. Hippolytus the Martyr, in his book De Consummatione Mundi, declares, "Antichristum Hierosolymis suscitaturum templum lapideum." How wonderfully was this fulfilled, when the mosque of Omar, the greatest of Mahometan mosques, was erected on the very site of Solomon's temple in this very Jerusalem.
* ↑ Matthew xxvi. 52.
* ↑ The Muezzim amongat the Mahometans are criers, who ascend the minarets of their mosques to call the people to pray to the God of Mahomet.
* ↑ Mahometanism Unveiled, vol. i. 297. London, 1829.