The Eastern Question and the Sixth Trumpet of Revelation
By J. Vuilleumier
The sixth trumpet of Rev. 9:13-21 is a prophecy upon which there is very little if any difference of opinion among expositors. Its application to the Turks is universally admitted. “The great river Euphrates” gives this power its unmistakable geographical location, as this river, one of the best known of ancient times, waters the first territory conquered by the Turks from the Arabs, in the eleventh century, by4Togrul Beg, and still possessed by them. Their innumerable “horsemen” and superior cavalry; the red, blue, and yellow of their uniforms and national colors; their use of firearms from horseback; the horsetail Turkish standard; the Turkish cruelty in war,—all these features make the identification easy and natural. But the most fascinating part of this prophecy is the period of time allotted to the Ottoman power to conquer and oppress and kill. The prophecy reads thus: “Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.” Verses 14, 15. The four angels, or messengers, are thought to designate the four sultanries, or governments, into which the Turkish power was divided from 1055: Persia or Bagdad, northern Syria or Aleppo, southern Syria or Damascus, Asia Minor or Iconium. The four angels were in chains, and then were let loose. History recognizes a first and a second Turkish empire. The first empire, which began in 1050 and ended near 1300, caused Europe to tremble. Pope Urban, while preaching the first crusade, said: “The barbarian hordes of the Turks . . . threaten all Christian lands. If God himself . . . does not bar their triumphant march, what nation, what kingdom, can shut them the gates of the West?”—Raffy, Vol. I, page 268. But God did shut the gates of the West against them, and kept them “bound” by internal anarchy and by the crusades, which lasted from 1095 to 1270. The second Turkish empire, started by Osman I in 1288, made many conquests in Asia Minor and around the Black Sea; but a terrific invasion of Mongols, from 1400 to 1450, again kept the Turks busy, or bound, in Asia. But now, by divine command, they were let loose. The fall of Constantinople into the hands of the Moslems just at this point (1453) marks in general history the end of the middle ages and the beginning of modern times. “Christendom had allowed its last bulwark to fall. At the noise of this great fall terror spread over Italy and over all Europe.” “The capture of Constantinople made the Turkish dominion in Europe secure. Notwithstanding their conquests, which extended as far as the shores of the Adriatic and the Danube, Constantinople was to them (the Turks) a continual menace. But this city having fallen into their hands, their establishment in Europe ceased to be a camping station which any storm might sweep away. . . . From now on, we shall see Mohammed II and his successors . . . threaten both Europe and Asia.”—Duruy, ‘Historie moderne,’ pages 7, 8, 74. The Turks were indeed “let loose.” “The Moslems were like a formidable tide beating both shores at the same time.” In quick succession, we see falling under their power Athens, Corinth, Syria, Egypt, Algiers, Arabia, Hungary, Moldavia, and Esclavonie. Mohammed II took his immense cavalry as far as Italy, and swore that he would make his horse eat oats upon the altar of St. Peter at Rome. Solyman I besieged Vienna, and was planning to invade Germany. All Europe was trembling. At the same time, Algiers and Tunis—as Carthage had been in the days of Genseric—became the retreat of a multitude of pirates (corsairs), who banished all safety from the coasts of Spain and Italy. Under Solyman, the sultan’s flags waved from the mouths of the Rhone to those of the Indus, and his authority extended from the Caucasus to the African Atlas. He called himself “the King of Kings.” From his time the Turks took their place among the nations of Europe, and had their share in shaping its destinies. And until the end of the seventeenth century, they held the first rank in eastern Europe. See Duruy, pages 76-81, 110-115, 360. Verily “the four angels that were held in readiness . . . were let loose to destroy the third of mankind!” Verse 15. About the destroying power of the Turks, suffice it to say here that no power known to have made war upon Europe ever exercised a more bloody savagery than the Turks. Their whole history is reeking with slaughter and blood. The fearful scourge was to destroy Christendom for a specific period of time, given in the prophecy as an hour, a day, a month, and a year, prophetic time, or 391 literal years. (The Jewish or Bible year has 360 days, and the Bible month 30 days.) This definite prediction of time is more daring, and, if fulfilled, more marvelous than all that precedes or accompanies it. It is a solemn challenge to modern unbelief or indifference as regards prophecy. Did the Turkish supremacy over eastern Europe last exactly 391 years? If this prophecy is verified by history to the century, the decade, the year, what better proof does anybody want that this prophecy is from God, and that the whole Bible is inspired, is the revelation from God to man? In order to find whether this prediction was fulfilled, we need but to look for the dates of the beginning and end of Turkish supremacy and autonomy in Europe. When did it begin? or, in other words, When were the Turks “let loose” upon Europe? For the century and the decade, every one will look for the fall of Constantinople—the capital and last bulwark of the Greek empire—into the hands of Sultan Mohammed II. This event, as we have remarked, is placed by historians at the very threshold of modern history. Duruy makes it the event which decided Turkish rule in Europe. This was in 1453. But the fall of Constantinople and of the Eastern Roman empire had virtually taken place four years before, through a diplomatic circumstance which we shall proceed to relate. John Palæologus, last emperor of Constantinople but one, died in 1448, leaving no sons. His two eldest brothers, Constantine and Demetrius, both desiring the throne, the choice was left to the people, who elected the elder as Constantine XIII. But before ascending his throne, this last successor of Constantine the Great thought it prudent to secure the confirmation of and consent to his election from Sultan Amurath II. A special envoy was therefore sent to Amurath, who received him with much grace, and sent him home with many presents. Maimbourg, a historian, says that this event “was a happy omen for the Turks, but a very unhappy one for the Greeks, as it showed that they would soon be the slaves of the former, who already disposed of the imperial crown as if it belonged to them.” No one will dispute that this salient event marks the date from which the Turks were “let loose” upon the Greek empire. This was in the year 1449. Four years afterward, Constantinople became a Turkish city, and the Greek empire was no more. Let us now look for the end of Turkish independence in Europe, and see if it comes exactly 391 years after 1449. Speaking of the end of the eighteenth century, the historian tells us that “the Turks had good frontiers and beautiful provinces. But they had lost their warlike spirit. After one century of furious wanderings across Europe and Asia, this people had fallen into Oriental apathy. . . . They spent two centuries in losing their qualities, in increasing their vices, and, consequently, in diminishing their strength.”—Duruy, pages 506, 507. At the end of the eighteenth century, “the political outlook is dark indeed for the Turks. . . . Victory seems to have left the standard of the prophet forever.”—De la Jonquiere, page 389. “Their gradual decline, says another, dates from the last century.”—Tallichet. “The defeats of the Turks, the growing confusion of their administration, the desires for independence on the part of Greece and Servia, the continual rebellions of the pashas, everything was leading Europe to believe in the approaching end of the Ottoman dominion.”—Duruy, page 392. Between 1821 and 1828, Greece made a desperate and successful effort in order to regain its freedom. The European powers having offered to help Turkey in putting an end to this conflict, the Sublime Porte haughtily refused. In 1831 the Egyptian pasha threatened to overthrow the sultan, who now accepted help from Russia, thus placing himself at the mercy of the czar. “The treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi (1833) annihilated the political independence of the Porte, by allowing a foreign power the right of interfering with the internal troubles of the empire.”—Id., page 483. This “political annihilation” was to become more complete in the near future. In 1839, the war between the viceroy of Egypt and his master opened anew, with such crushing defeats for the sultan that Europe interposed again, this time with the consent of Turkey.5 “The Eastern question, says the historian, was officially opened; at one time, it did seem as if it would bring about a universal conflagration. England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia signed with Turkey (July 15, 1840) a treaty by which the viceroy preserved the hereditary possession of Egypt and the life possession of Acco, on condition of leaving within ten days Arabia, Syria, Candia, etc. . . . In case of refusal, Mohammed Ali would be shorn of all his estates, and the four powers, acting as sheriffs, would attend to the execution of the sentence, which was the disgrace of the viceroy.” Mohammed Ali arrogantly rejected all propositions, threatened to set Europe on fire by calling on the Mohammedan world, and prepared to resist the coalition. He was defeated, lost Syria and Tripoli, and finally signed a declaration by which he submitted to the sultan. Thus the interference of the powers was not only accepted in principle (as in 1833) but in fact. Turkey, by that very fact, had ceased to be an independent power. Prince Metternich remarked in 1840 that Turkey, “by accepting the right of interference and protection, lost thereby the flower of its independence.” “Since 1840, says a diplomat, the Ottoman administration has accustomed itself to yield to the interference of European representatives of all ranks in the internal affairs of the land.” Thus, what was said about 1833, when Russia’s interference was accepted, can be repeated with a fourfold emphasis of the event of 1840: “By allowing a foreign power the right of interfering with the internal troubles of the empire . . . the political independence of the Porte was annihilated.” To sum up: In 1449, the Greek empire had placed itself at the mercy of the sultan; in 1840, the Ottoman empire placed itself at the mercy of the Western powers. In either case, this act marked the loss of political independence. These two dates then logically mark the beginning and end of the Turkish supremacy. The nineteenth century thus marks the century in which the 391 years are to end; the forties mark the decade; the year 1840 marks the very year; and behold! from 1449 to 1840 there are exactly 391 years! But the conclusion of all this—one of overwhelming importance—remains to be noticed. It is found in Rev. 11:14, 15: “The second woe [the sixth trumpet] is past; and, behold, the third woe [the seventh trumpet] cometh quickly. And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever and ever.” From the study of the sixth trumpet, then, the second coming of Christ is at hand; it “cometh quickly.” Another event, however, in connection with the Ottoman power, must take place before the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of Jesus Christ. This constitutes the sixth plague:— “And the sixth angel [of the seven angels having the seven last plagues in which is filled up the wrath of God, Rev. 15:1] poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates [the Turkish empire]; and the water thereof [its military power and political existence] was dried up [brought to an end], that the way of the kings of the [far] east might be prepared. And I saw three unclean spirits, . . . spirits of devils, working miracles, [through spiritualism], . . . go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebreo-tongue Armageddon.” Rev. 16:12-16. The events in the Balkans just now indicate clearly that if they are not to bring about the end of the “Sick Man of the East” within a few weeks, it is not because the last end of his long agony can be much longer deferred, but because God has yet a short work to perform in the earth.