The Two Treaties; or, Hope for Jerusalem

by Edward Hoare

But thanksgiving is not the only duty of the day, for the two treaties now concluded involve consequences of such great importance that they ought to awaken in all our minds the deepest interest, and the most earnest expectation. To the student of the Prophetic Scriptures they assume an importance altogether unequalled by any event in modern history; I might almost say; by any event since the Siege of Jerusalem. We are taught in many places of Scripture that the people of God will not be taken by surprise by the great events of the latter days; but that there will be certain predicted signs which may be understood beforehand by those who study them. Thus in Matthew xxiv. our Lord teaches us that there will be such signs as will indicate the nearness of his return as distinctly as the budding of the fig tree assures us of the approach of summer. When we see the fig tree budding in spring we know that summer is at hand, and so when we see these predicted signs we are to conclude without a doubt that the great deliverance is near. Nor are we to wait until the signs are fully developed, or have passed into the region of history, but we are to look out for their beginnings, as our Lord said, “when these things begin to come to pass then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh.” Now I cannot help believing that the conclusion of these two treaties is at all events amongst the beginnings. I believe that the fig tree is beginning to bud, and that, if it be, it is high time for us to be looking out for the summer. Let us endeavour then to consider, first, what we actually see; and secondly, what we may anticipate as the not improbable consequence of the great events that have taken place.

I. First then, WHAT DO WE SEE?

Do we not see the complete, and, as far as man can judge, the final overthrow of the uncontrolled dominion of the Ottoman Empire? The result of the Berlin treaty is that, although the form is preserved, the dominant power of the Ottoman Empire is at an end.

Look first at Europe as re-arranged by the treaty of Berlin. If you compare the new map of Turkey in Europe with the map before the commencement of the war you will find that it is not one third of the size. Montenegro, Servia, and Roumania are no longer tributary States; Bulgaria north of the Balkans is independent of Turkey; Bosnia and Herzegovina are virtually transferred to Austria; and a considerable portion of Thessaly is handed over to Greece. Then again the position of the remnant that is left is entirely changed. The New Roumelia is to have an independent administration. The remainder of Thessaly, Thrace, Macedonia, and Crete, are all to be placed under constitutional government, to be arranged with the concurrence of the great powers of Europe. The power to oppress is therefore at an end, and as far as man can judge, for ever. The Ottoman was let loose from the Euphrates as a scourge on Apostate Christendom. He has done his work, though not for God’s glory, and is now laid aside by the same hand that raised him up. He was appointed for a given time, and a given work, but now that time is expired, that work is done, and he is wasting under his predicted doom.

But how is it in Asia? Let the treaty between the Porte and England answer the question. In that treaty, and in the letter of the Secretary of State explaining its object, there is the clear recognition of the complete defencelessness of the Turkish Empire. The treaty was made because there was no power of self defence left in the Ottoman, or in other words, because the Euphratean flood was almost dry.

The very existence of the treaty is therefore a proof that the power of self-support is gone. But that is not all, or nearly so. According to the treaty, England makes itself responsible for a complete reform in Turkish administration. Turkey in Asia is henceforth to be governed, if not as an English protectorate, at all events under English counsel. Is it possible to imagine a greater proof of Turkish decay? If there were any life left, would the haughty Turk submit to such conditions? If he did not know that he was helpless, would he ever have consented to such terms? The conditions of the treaty are a self-evident proof of his loss of power. But that is not all; for is it possible to suppose that England will be responsible for the continuation of Turkish misrule? Is it likely that England will hold those treaty powers, and not use them? Is it to be supposed for one moment that we have undertaken the responsibilities, and are now going to look on as passive spectators on all the corruptions of the past misgovernment? But if England secures a complete reform the days of the misrule of Turkish Pashas are numbered. The death warrant of the whole system is signed and sealed, and the fault will rest with England if Turkey in Asia is not in a very short time virtually free.

Now these are the indisputable facts of the case; the undoubted results of the two treaties; and the remarkable fact is that these results are exactly such as the students of prophecy have been predicting for many years. From one prophecy they have foretold for years that there must be a decay of the Ottoman Empire simultaneous with the loss of the temporal power of the Pope, [7a] and now we see their words come true. From another prophecy they have believed that the decay of the Ottoman power is represented in symbol by the drying up of the Euphratean flood, so that the Ottoman must recede from his conquests just as the waters of a flood recede from the land over which there has been an overflow, [7b] and this is the process which we are now witnessing. From Europe the waters are almost, if not entirely, gone, so that Europe is practically dry. And as for Asia, the waters there have become so shallow that the Englishman, we hope, will walk through them and scarcely wet his feet. I am well aware that some people have felt a difficulty in applying the symbol of the Euphratean overflow to the Ottoman invasion, and I am quite prepared to acknowledge that there is a great uncertainty about the interpretation of all symbolic prophecies; but one thing we must all admit, that if we are right in our interpretation of the symbol, we see in these two treaties the most remarkable fulfilment of the prophecy. We see the drying up going on in our own days and under our own eyes; so that we have this day a fresh evidence conspicuous before the world of the divine inspiration of God’s holy word, of the truth of the prophetic scriptures, and of the sovereignty of God over the mightiest nations of the world. Sceptics may doubt, and infidels may scoff; but we see that God’s word is from himself. What he has predicted, that is coming to pass, and, though the time appointed has been long, we see in the great facts of our own day that the word of God’s prophecy is true.

II. We may proceed then to consider WHAT WE MAY ANTICIPATE AS THE PROBABLE CONSEQUENCE OF ALL THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE.

When our Lord spoke those words referred to in St. Matthew, he was clearly speaking of the second Advent; but the events which we are now witnessing are not the same as those described in that chapter, and therefore we cannot regard them as the predicted signs of that glorious appearing. But there is another great event foretold in prophecy, which many of us believe must take place before the Advent, and for that event I cannot but hope that these two treaties will rapidly prepare the way. I mean the return of the Jews and the ten tribes to Palestine.

If we turn to the prophecy respecting the drying up of the Euphrates in Rev. xvi. 12, we find that it will be dried up in order that “the way of the kings of the East may be prepared.” That expression “the kings of the East” does not mean the kings now reigning in the East, but it does mean the kings who are to come up from the East. So that the full meaning of the text would be given if we were to render it “that the way of the kings might be prepared from the East!” The persons referred to are kings by birthright, though they are far away in the East instead of in their own home; but when the Euphrates is dried up a way will be made for their return. Who then are those kings? And what nation is it that God has chosen to royalty? Turn to Exod. xix. 6, and there you read of Israel, “Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests;” the meaning of which expression is explained by St. Peter’s quotation of it, in which he substitutes the words “A royal priesthood.” Surely then it is not altogether unreasonable to believe that the priests of that royal priesthood may be the kings referred to, and that a way will be prepared for their return by the drying up of the Euphrates, or the wasting of the Turkish power.