THE WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE UNDER GERMANIC TRIBES
The statement of verse 8 seems, then, undoubtedly to refer to the Empire; it did exist, it ceased to be, and it will reappear. The assertion that it "is not" must not be taken to mean that the beast had ceased to exist in John's time. The present tense is to be regarded as prophetic. The verb "to be" often has the force of continuance of existence. The whole statement implies a past existence, a discontinuance of that existence, a future reappearance. In the vision recorded in the thirteenth chapter, John saw one of the heads of thebeast "as though it had been smitten unto death." If, as seems probable, this head is imperialism, then the overthrow of imperial Rome is likewise indicated in that passage.
In the light, then, of the words: "The beast that thou sawest was, and is not," we may now consider how the Roman Empire was overthrown.
We have seen that, at the accession of the Emperor Valentinian I. inA.D.364, the Empire was divided into two parts. The succeeding century witnessed the disintegration of the western half. The cause was primarily from within. Augustus, the first Emperor, had instituted a policy of settling colonies of "barbarians" from northern Europe within the frontiers of the Empire. Later Emperors adopted the policy more generally. The significance of this lies in the fact that by the barbarians who had already been thus established in the Empire, the attacks were commenced which resulted in the dismemberment of its western provinces.
At the close of the fourth century hordesof Gothic tribes from north-eastern and eastern Germany set out, under Alaric their chief, in quest of new lands. Settlements of these very Goths had already been established south of the Danube by the Imperial Government as allies of the Romans. After an excursion into Italy, in which they were temporarily checked, they poured, in 406, into defenceless Gaul. From thence Alaric returned to invade Italy, and three times in three years besieged Rome (408-410), eventually sacking the city. After his death, in 410, the Goths retired from Italy, entered Gaul, and permanently occupied the southern part of that country and a large part of Spain, where they were known asVisigoths(i.e., Western Goths).
Other Germanic tribes also streamed into Gaul. Of these, theFranks(whence the name France) issued from districts around the middle and lower Rhine and occupied northern Gaul; theSuevi, from north and north-west Germany, passed through into Spain; theAlani, formerly from eastern Europe, settled in west France and Spain; theBurgundians, from eastern Germany, seized that part of Gaul which eventually was named after them, Burgundy. TheVandals, fromnorthern and central Germany, after being defeated by the Franks, crossed into Spain under their leader Genseric, and from thence established themselves in the province of Africa, in 429. This occupation of Gaul and Spain was soon perforce recognised by the Emperor at Rome. At the death of the Emperor Honorius, in 423, Rome exercised little more than a nominal authority over the greater part of the west.
From Britain the Roman troops were withdrawn by Honorius, in 409, though the final abandonment of the island province did not take place till 436. Teutonic tribes from North Europe were soon engaged in invading this part of the Empire. TheJutes, from Jutland, landed in 449, theSaxonsin 477, and about the same time theAngles.
Toward the close of the reign of Valentinian III. (433-455), Gaul and Italy were invaded by theHunsunder Attila. The Huns originally inhabited a large part of central and northern Asia. In the latter part of the fourth century they moved west into Scythia and Germany, driving the Goths before them. Attila's dominionsthereafter extended over a vast area of eastern, central, and northern Europe, and he was regarded as of equal standing with the Emperors at Constantinople and Rome. After a gigantic but futile incursion into Gaul, in 451, the Huns rushed into Italy, ravaging its northern plains. An embassy from Rome and an immense ransom saved the situation. Attila died in 453, and Italy was evacuated. The Huns eventually settled in south-eastern Europe, and their dominion dwindled away. A trace of their name may be found in the word Hungary.
In North Africa Genseric the Vandal established a powerful dominion, and set about preparing an invasion of Italy by sea. In 455 (the last year of the reign of Valentinian III.) his army of Vandals and Moors attacked Rome, which was again given over to pillage. Its wealth and treasures were transported to Carthage, and with them the vessels of the temple at Jerusalem; these had been brought to Rome inA.D.70 by Titus, the conqueror of Jerusalem. For twenty years after Genseric's achievement Roman Emperors existed in little else than name, the realpower being in the hands of a barbarian officer. In 476 the last Emperor was deposed by Odoacer, the king of the Heruli, a tribe which, issuing from the shores of the Baltic, made successful inroads into Italy and occupied much of the country. Odoacer was, at the request of the Roman Senate, given the reins of government by the eastern Emperor Zeno, and news was despatched to the court at Constantinople that no longer was there an Emperor of the west. Subsequently, in 493, Odoacer was slain by Theodoric, the king of theOstrogoths, who then became predominant in the Italian peninsula. The Ostrogoths (i.e., Eastern Goths) had broken off from the main body of their nation, and after settling south of the Danube moved into the province of Dalmatia.
Other Germanic tribes, in addition to those named above, firmly established themselves within the northern limits of the Empire. Of these, two are worthy of mention, theAlemanni, who occupied most of what is now Switzerland and districts northward, and theLombards, who settled in north Italy and the territory north-east of it.
There have been various attempts to identify with the ten prophetic kingdoms the states formed from the western half of the Roman Empire by the Germanic tribes from the north. Such attempts fail from the standpoints both of history and of prophecy. To group the tribes so as to make ten kingdoms out of them is, of course, possible in several ways, for there were at least eighteen such tribes. Accordingly lists put forward differ considerably. But such grouping is manifestly arbitrary. Again, since these invading nations occupied only the western half of the Empire, the above allocation of the ten kingdoms necessarily leaves the eastern half out of consideration, and therefore excludes the land of Palestine from this stage of the prophetic forecast.
Now the prophecies concerning the times of the Gentiles are invariably focussed upon the Jews and their land. The dealings of God with the Jews form the pivot of His dealings with other nations. Thus no scheme of prophetic exposition relative to this subject is to be regarded as Scriptural which excludes Palestine from itsscope. To endeavour to make the Word of God square with facts of history is to tamper with Scripture and to run the risk of obscuring its meaning and force.
The idea that the formation of the ten kingdoms took place in the fifth century fails to stand the test of Scripture in other respects. Of the ten kings prophecy foretells that "they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour," that they "have one mind, and they give their power and authority unto the beast" (Rev. 17. 13, 14). No such tenfold confederacy has existed in Europe; it certainly never existed among the chieftains of the Germanic tribes which invaded the west of the Roman Empire in the fifth century, neither is there any record of such an agreement among them. Nor, again, can it be said that they made war with the Lamb and were overcome by Him (v. 14). These prophecies still await fulfilment. Similar considerations apply to the passage in Daniel 7 in reference to the fourth kingdom. The ten kings, it is said, would arise out of that kingdom, and after them another king who would make war with the saints and prevail against them until the Ancient of Days came (vv. 21, 22, 24).
Again, since the persecution under theking who arises after the others continues until the Ancient of Days comes (v. 22), his war against the saints must have lasted from the fifth century until the present time, if he arose in that century. Moreover, as he was said to be going to subdue three kingdoms (v. 24), the seven kingdoms not so subdued must likewise have continued. This has obviously not been the case. From every point of view it is impossible to assign the tenfold division to any time in the past.
The Turkish Empire in the 16th Century.
Having narrated the disintegration of the western half of the Empire, we will now recount the events which involved the overthrow of the eastern half. The impoverishment of the imperial power at Rome, and the weakening effect of the Germanic attacks upon it, tended to enhance the power of the Emperor at Constantinople. Indeed the eastern Empire was soon regarded as the more important of the two, and for some time after the barbarian invasions in Italy the Emperorsat Constantinople claimed supremacy over the west.
The seventh century saw the ascendency of Mohammed (bornA.D.570) in Arabia, to which country his personal power, temporal and religious, was limited. Upon his death, in 632, his followers determined on the invasion of Persia and the Asiatic dominions of the Emperor at Constantinople. Mohammed's successor, Abubekr, the first of the Khaliphs (i.e., "representatives" of the prophet), at once waged war in both directions. Persia speedily succumbed; Syria and Palestine were subjugated after seven years by the Khaliph Omar. The reduction of Egypt followed, and during the remainder of this century the Saracens, the name by which the followers of Mohammed became termed in Christendom, extended their territory across the entire length of North Africa, and shortly afterwards even into Spain, where they overpowered the then disunited Visigoths.
The Saracen power in Western Asia was distracted during the next century by civil war, and was further weakened by unsuccessful wars against the Greeks. At length, in 750, the seat of government wasmoved from Damascus to Bagdad. From the eighth century onward, though the religion of Mohammed gained ground, and continues to do so to-day, the empire established by his followers dwindled rapidly, one province after another shaking off its allegiance until at the end of the tenth century its shattered dominions lay open to the nearest invader. The foe appeared in the shape of the formidable Turk.
In view of the entrance of this new enemy we may note the extent of the territory belonging at this time to the eastern branch of the old Roman world, the Byzantine Empire, as it is termed (from Byzantium, the ancient name of Constantinople). The Eastern Emperors had recovered some of their lost ground in Asia, and at the close of the tenth century they held all Asia Minor, Armenia, a part of Syria, a considerable portion of Italy, and all the Balkan Peninsula.
Beyond the north-eastern border of the Saracen dominions lay the country of Turkestan, inhabited by the Turks, a branch of the warlike nation of the Tartarsof Central Asia. With them the Saracens, after the establishment of their Government at Bagdad, waged successful warfare for a time, taking numbers of Turks captive and dispersing them over the Empire. This only facilitated the eventual downfall of the Saracen sovereignty. The Turks in Western Asia grew in influence, and at length the Turkish troops, breaking into open revolt, assumed control over the Khaliphate, deposing and nominating the Khaliphs at their will.
Early in the eleventh century the bulk of the Turkish nation, under its leader Tongrol Bek, moving out from Turkestan, swept down upon Persia. The Khaliphate at Bagdad was, however, permitted to remain, and not only so, but Tongrol Bek and all his tribes embraced the Mohammedan religion. The invaders then marched west in vast numbers to make an attack upon Christendom, and in the course of time subdued Armenia and most of Asia Minor. Europe became alarmed, and the Byzantine Emperors eagerly sought the assistance of the nations of the west. Hence arose the Crusades, which had as their chief object the deliveranceof Palestine from both Saracens and Turks, and which served to retard, though not to prevent, the advance of the Turkish power in Europe.
Early in the thirteenth century a mighty movement of Mongols south-west from Central Asia, involving the immediate destruction of the Khaliphate at Bagdad, exerted an important influence upon the Turks, in driving those Turkish tribes which had remained east of Armenia westward into Asia Minor. This resulted in the establishment of various Turkish dynasties in that country. At the close of the thirteenth century the paramount power over these was exercised by Osman (or Othman, whence the name Ottoman), who seized all that remained of the ancient Roman world in Asia, and thus practically founded the Ottoman Empire. In the middle of the fourteenth century the way was opened for the Ottomans to advance into Europe. They were invited by one of the rival factions at Constantinople to undertake their cause. The Turks accordingly crossed the Hellespont and seized Gallipoli and the territory in the vicinity of the capital. Constantinopleitself was left unattacked for the time. Under Murad I., the grandson of Osman, Roumania and several kingdoms south of the Danube, including Bulgaria, were subdued. The kings of Hungary, Bosnia and Serbia rose against the invader, but were severely defeated, and by the decisive victory of Kosovo, in 1389, Serbia and Bosnia were annexed.
Constantinople was temporarily saved by another advance of the Mongol Tartars upon the Turkish dominions in Asia, where, in 1402, the Ottomans suffered a severe defeat. From this check they recovered, and during the first part of the fifteenth century were at war with the Hungarians and neighbouring races, whom they eventually overthrew. In 1451 Mohammed II. ascended the Ottoman throne, and in 1453 led an immense army against Constantinople. The city was taken by storm, the last of the Roman Emperors of the east died fighting, and Mohammed II. rode in triumph to the cathedral of St. Sophia, where he established the Moslem worship.
For over a hundred years after this the Turkish Empire continued to extend.Egypt was annexed in 1517, and in the middle of this century Tripoli and Algeria were added, as well as considerable districts in Europe and Asia. The Turks were now at the zenith of their power.
Recapitulating, we may compare the two divisions of the Roman Empire since their overthrow, from theprophetic,religiousandpoliticalstandpoints. From thepropheticpoint of view our interest in the west has thus far centred in the fact that the ten kingdoms were not formed by the fifth century invasions; our interest in the east centres chiefly in the land of Palestine, wrenched, as we have seen, from the eastern Emperor by the Saracens, and then occupied by the Turks, who still possess it. From thereligiousstandpoint, the Germanic tribes in the west accepted Roman Catholicism, hence its progress in that part of Europe; in the east the Turks had accepted Mohammedanism when invading the Empire of the Khaliphs, hence the establishment of Islamism throughout the Turkish dominions.Politically, the western invasion in the fifth century, and the consequent amalgamation of the Teutonic tribes with the peoples formerlyunder Roman control, led eventually to the formation of the various mediaeval monarchies of Western Europe which are to-day either kingdoms or republics. Affairs in the eastern half of the Roman world have moved more slowly in this respect, owing to the prolonged existence of the Ottoman Empire. The slow decay of the Turkish power from the middle of the sixteenth century onward has already resulted in the formation of some Eastern States, and the process still continues.
The decline of the power of the Turks set in during the latter half of the sixteenth century, when their dominions passed under incapable rulers. In the reign of Selim II. (1566-1574) occurred the first conflict between the Turks and Russians, the former being driven back from Astrakkan. In 1593, during a war between Turkey and Austria, the provinces of Transylvania, Moldavia, and Wallachia rose in revolt. As the result of intermittent wars in the latter half of the seventeenth century Austria acquired almost the whole ofHungary. In 1770 Russia occupiedMoldaviaandWallachia, which though nominally for a time under Turkey werepractically Russian protectorates. During the next few years Russia regained the Crimea and all the neighbouring district north of the Black Sea. At the commencement of the nineteenth century the Ottoman Empire was in a perilous condition. Napoleon had plans for its partition. Provincial governors were everywhere acting independently of the Sultan. In 1804Serbiarevolted, and after a few years of persistent struggle obtained its autonomy.Greecerevolted in 1820, and, though subdued for a time, gained its independence in 1829 through the intervention of England, France, and Russia, and chiefly as the result of the naval battle of Navarino, in which the Turco-Egyptian fleet was annihilated. In the same yearAlgeriawas annexed by the French. European rivalries prevented for a time any rapid diminution of the Empire.
The Crimean War of 1854-5 had important consequences for the Balkan peoples. It gave them, under the slackening grasp of the Porte, twenty years of comparatively quiet national development. In 1860 Wallachia and Moldavia formed themselves into the single state ofRoumania. In 1866 the Pasha of Egypt assumed the title of Khedive (i.e., king), thereby securing ameasure of independence for the country. In 1875 the misrule of the Sultan led to the insurrection of Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Bulgaria. Serbia and Montenegro then took up arms. In 1877 a war with Russia saw Turkey without an ally. A complete Russian victory in 1878 issued in the treaties first of San Stefano and then of Berlin, by which Turkey yielded to Russia the state ofBessarabiaand districts south of the Caucasus, the independence ofSerbia,Montenegro, andRoumaniawere recognised by the Porte,Bulgariawas constituted an autonomous state,BosniaandHerzegovinawere ceded to Austria,Thessalyto Greece, andCyprusto Britain. In 1885, as the result of a revolution, EasternRoumeliabecame united to Bulgaria. Shortly after that date German influence began to gain ascendancy at the court of the Sultan, and, among other affairs, largely dominated the granting of railway concessions in Western Asia. The effects of that influence have been evidenced in the present war. In 1912 Italy annexedTripoliafter a brief war. In 1913 a short but sanguinary war with the Balkan States deprived Turkey of all her European dominions save for a small piece of territory in the vicinityof Constantinople.Egypt, which has been chiefly under British control for a considerable period, has in 1915 been practically annexed by Britain as a protectorate, the Khedive being deposed and a nominee of the British Government being placed in authority. Britain has likewise annexed a district north of the Persian Gulf.
The continual decrease of the Turkish Empire, and more especially during the past hundred years, affords ground, apart from other considerations, for the expectation of its overthrow and the eventual cession of Palestine to the Jews, perhaps by a general agreement among the European Powers, events which seem not far distant. National jealousies would not permit the permanent annexation of Palestine by any one of these Powers, in whatever way the remaining Asiatic Turkish dominions may be divided. A proposal has already been put forward for its annexation to Egypt. Such an arrangement would in any case be merely temporary. To the Jews the land belongs, and by Divine decree the Jews are to possess it again.
The Turkish Empire in 1914.
It should be observed, in passing, that Scripture is apparently silent concerning the occupation of Palestine by the Saracens and Turks. Such silence is noticeable when we remember how definitely the occupation by the other Gentile powers, the Chaldean, Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman, and the order and character of their rule, were predicted. The cause of the silence is not difficult to ascertain. The four Gentile powers just mentioned had to do with the Jews as the recognised possessors of Palestine, either by way of removing them from their country or restoring them to it, or during such time as they were permitted to remain in it with liberty to continue their temple worship and sacrifice. The Chaldeans removed the Jews from the land, the Medo-Persians repatriated them, the Greeks permitted their continuance in it, the Romans did so too, untilA.D.70, when they crushed them. When, however, the Saracens and the Turks seized the land the Jews had been scattered, nor have they received national recognition while under them. Gentile occupation of Palestine during such times as the Jews remainin their present condition seems therefore to receive no direct notice in prophecy.
The restoration of Palestine to the Jews is closely connected with the revival of the Roman Empire in its tenfold form. Prior to considering the manner of this revival we must notice how during the period between the overthrow of that Empire and its coming resuscitation, its dominions and their government have remained Roman in character, thus affording a further proof that the coming and final world-power will not be entirely a new one, but will be a revival of the ancient Roman or fourth empire indicated in the prophecies of Daniel.
Such was the prestige of the Roman name and authority that the chieftains of the Germanic tribes which in the fifth century subdued the western half of the Empire governed the conquered territories, not so much as tribal chiefs, but as successors to, and in continuation of, the imperial rule; they introduced no radical changes in the provincial and municipal forms of government of their predecessors. Civil organisation remained distinctly Roman, and has continued so; upon it arebased some of the chief municipal institutions of modern life. Indeed Roman civil law still remains the foundation of modern jurisprudence.
In south-eastern Europe, too, countries which were for centuries under the power of the Turk retained, in their municipal institutions and organisation, the impress of Roman authority. It should be remembered that though the eastern or Byzantine portion of the ancient Roman Empire was distinct from the western, its emperors being designated as Grecian in contrast to the Roman, yet its legislative foundations were laid in the Roman Empire prior to the division of the east from the west. Byzantine imperialism was therefore really Roman under an eastern title. According as the states in the east have become freed from the Turkish yoke, so the character of their government and legislation has conformed in a large degree to those of the west. The further diminution of the Turkish Empire will doubtless see a corresponding revival of western conditions and methods.
It is important also to observe that notwithstanding the passing away of theRoman Empire as such, the principle of imperialism remained, and, amidst the vicissitudes of national government in Europe, has continued to the present time. The imperial power in the west was not abolished when in 476 the last Roman Emperor was deposed. On the contrary, there was a kind of reunion imperially of the west with the east. For a considerable time the tribal kings of the west received recognition from the eastern emperors, and were regarded as their associates in imperial control. This was the case even with the Saxon kings in Britain, and on Saxon coins may be seen to-day the same title,basileus(i.e., king), as was borne by the emperors at Constantinople. Italy itself was wrested from the Teutons by the eastern Emperor Justinian in the sixth century, and remained under the Byzantine Caesars till 731.
Meanwhile the Roman Senate continued to exercise its authority, and in 800 chose the Frankish king Charlemagne as their sovereign. He was already ruling over the greater part of Western Europe, and was now crowned as Emperor at Rome by the Pope. Though his empire fell to pieces after his death, his dominions retained, and have since retained, their Roman character.
Consideration of space forbids our tracing here the further continuance of imperialism as a factor in European politics. Recent history and present-day events indicate how rapidly we are approaching its final development at the close of the times of the Gentiles. The coming confederacy of European states will not result in the formation of a new empire, but will be the revival of the Roman in an altered form.
(1)The Geographical Standpoint.
The coming revival of the Roman Empire will for our present purpose be best considered from the geographical, political, and religious standpoints.
Any forecast of the exact delimitations of the ten kingdoms constituting the reconstructed Empire must necessarily be largely conjectural. That their aggregate area will precisely conform to that of the ancient Roman Empire does not necessarily follow from the fact of its revival,and cannot be definitely concluded from Scripture. An extension of the territories of the Empire in its resuscitated form would be quite consistent with the retention of its identity. Moreover, if Roman imperialism may be considered to have continued in the hands of Teutonic monarchs after the fall of the western part of the Empire in 476, if, for instance, Charles the Great, of whom we have spoken (p. 58), ruled as a Roman Emperor, despite the passing away of the actual Empire itself, then the dominions which were under the rule of these later monarchs may yet be found incorporated in the Empire, and so form parts of the ten kingdoms. In that case Germany and Holland would be included. Possibly, too, the Empire will embrace all the territories which belonged to the three which preceded it, the Grecian, Medo-Persian, and Chaldean. Certainly when the stone fell on the toes of the image, the whole image, representing these former three as well as the fourth, was demolished. Suggestive also in this respect is the fact that the beast in the vision recorded in Revelation 13. 2 was possessed of features of the leopard, the bear, and the lion, the same beasts which represented in Daniel's vision the Grecian, Medo-Persian, andChaldean kingdoms (Dan. 7. 4-6), the order in Revelation 13 being inverted. While political characteristics are doubtless chiefly in view in these symbols, there may at the same time be an indication of the eventual incorporation of the first three empires in the fourth. It must be remembered, too, that the authority of the federal head of the ten kingdoms is to be world-wide: "There was given to him authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation" (Rev. 13. 7). It is probable, therefore, that while the ten kingdoms will occupy a well defined area, their dependencies and the countries which are allied with them will embrace practically the remainder of the world.
If, on the other hand, the Roman Empire is to be reconstructed in exact conformity territorially with its ancient boundaries—such a reconstruction is, of course, not inconceivable—we must consider what period of the conquests of the ancient Empire to take, whether under the first emperor, Augustus, or during the Apostolic Age, or later. We may, perhaps, be helped by the facts already mentioned, that prophecy relating to Gentile dominion is focussed upon the Jews and Palestine, and has especially in view the presence ofthe nation in their land. Now, shortly after their overthrow, inA.D.70, their national recognition as possessors of the land ceased. This period, moreover, corresponds broadly to the close of the Apostolic Age. The dispersion of the Jews among the nations was completed by Adrian in the next century. He desolated the whole of Palestine, expelling all the remaining Jewish inhabitants.
We will therefore now review the limits of the Empire and of some of its provinces at that time, noticing certain circumstances of past and present history suggestive of future issues. In doing so we are not predicting that the boundaries of the revived Empire will be those of the ancient.
Commencing with North Africa, it will be observed, on referring to the map, that practically the same strip of territory which belonged to the Roman Empire in the times of the apostles has passed directly under the government of countries which were themselves then within the Empire. For Spain rules over Morocco, France over Algeria and Tunis, Italy recently seized Tripoli, and Britain has, since Turkey's entrance into the great war, virtuallytaken possession of Egypt. It seems not a little significant that no country which was outside the limits of the Empire at the time under consideration has been permitted by God to annex these North African territories since the Saracens and the Turks were dispossessed of them.
Passing now to Asia, the territory in that continent which belonged to Rome in the first century is approximately what remained to Turkey immediately prior to the present war. Mesopotamia and most of Armenia were included. The war has already seen Turkey dispossessed of portions of these. The downfall of the Turkish Empire would almost certainly involve territorial rearrangements of deepest import in the light of prophecy, especially as regards Palestine.
The 8th chapter of Daniel apparently indicates that the Asiatic territories of the Empire will be divided much as they were under the Greeks after the death of Alexander the Great. He was obviously symbolised by the great horn (v. 22). The four horns which came up in its place (v. 8) are clearly, too, the four generals whosucceeded Alexander, and among whom his dominions were divided, Cassander ruling over Macedonia and Greece, Lysimachus over part of Asia Minor and Thrace (the extent of the latter province was almost exactly what now belongs to Turkey in Europe), Seleucus over most of Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, and the east, and Ptolemy over Egypt. Next follows a prediction carrying us to events which are evidently yet future. It is said, for instance, that these events will take place "in the latter time of their kingdom (not, it will be observed, in the time of the four kings themselves who succeeded Alexander, but of the kingdoms over which they ruled), when the transgressors are come to the full" (v. 23). The expressions in this chapter, "the time of the end" (v. 17), "the latter time of the indignation," "the appointed time of the end" (v. 19), and "the latter time of their kingdom" (v. 23), all point to a period still future, namely, to the close of the present age. Again, in reference to the "king of fierce countenance," while much of the prophecy can be applied to Antiochus Epiphanes in the second centuryB.C., yet no man has hitherto arisen whose character and acts have been precisely those related inverses 9-12 and 23-25. We may also compare what is said of "the transgression that maketh desolate" (v. 13) with the Lord's prophecy concerning the abomination of desolation (Matt. 24. 15-22), a prophecy which also manifestly awaits fulfilment.
Possibly, therefore, these Asiatic territories will be similarly divided in the coming time. In regard to the first of the above-mentioned four divisions, the recent extension of Greece to include the ancient province of Macedonia is remarkable. This was an outcome of the Balkan War of 1912. The boundaries of Greece are now approximately what they were under Cassander in the time of the Grecian Empire, what they were also later as the provinces of Macedonia and Achaia in the Roman Empire. There has lately, therefore, been a significant reversion to ancient conditions in this respect.
Coming now to the dual-monarchy of Austria-Hungary, reference to the map of the Roman Empire in the Apostolic Age will show that what are now Hungary, Transylvania, Bessarabia, and other states of the present monarchy were without theRoman boundaries, while Pannonia, or what is now Austria west of the Danube, was within; even when in the next century Dacia (now Transylvania, Bessarabia, &c.) was annexed, the two parts of the present dual kingdom were separate. The separation of Hungary from Austria has for a considerable time been a practical question of European politics, and may be hastened by present events.
The northern and north-eastern boundaries of Italy embraced the Trentino and the peninsula of Istria. Noticeable, therefore, are the present efforts of Italy to acquire these very districts, efforts which seem likely to achieve success. Roman states north of Italy covered what are now Baden, Wurtemberg, Luxemberg, and a large part of Bavaria. The possibility of an eventual severance of these from Prussian domination has been much discussed of late.
The Rhenish provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, originally portions of the Roman province of Gallia (now France), were snatched from France by Germany in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71. Their recovery is a supreme object of the efforts of the French in the present war, and not without hope of success.
As to Britain, at the time under consideration the greater part of the island was definitely included in the Roman Empire. Ireland and most of Scotland were never conquered by the Romans. Should Britain form one of the ten kingdoms, there is nothing to show that Ireland or any other part of the British Empire must of necessity be absolutely separated from it. Self-government may yet be possessed by those territories which have not yet received it, and it is significant that Ireland has now practically obtained it. That the lands which are linked with Britain as dependencies, or as in possession of self-government, should remain as integral parts of the Empire is but consistent with the coming world-wide authority of the potentate who will be the federal head of the ten kingdoms. And that each state in the British Empire should have its own local government is, on the other hand, consistent with the establishment of a closer and complete confederacy of ten kingdoms, the area of which may correspond largely to that of the ancient Roman Empire. In contrast to the self-government of the other countries of the world atthe coming period, the ten united kingdoms will eventually be absolutely under the control of the final emperor just mentioned, for the ten kings over these states, who receive authority as kings with him, will be of one mind to give their power and authority and their kingdom to him (Rev. 17. 12, 13, 17).
What has been said of the British Empire may be true also of others of the ten kingdoms which have colonies or dependencies, and thus, while the ten kingdoms will themselves constitute an Empire, their alliances and treaties with other countries of the world will apparently involve an extension of the authority of the controlling despot "over every tribe and people and tongue and nation" (Rev. 13. 7). If, for instance, the United States of America were at that time in alliance with Britain (quite a possible contingency), their joint influence would probably extend to the whole of the American continents, which would thereby acknowledge his authority.
We may observe, too, the way in which the continent of Africa has come under certain European influences in modern times. The mention of this is simply suggestive. That the Scripture will beabsolutely fulfilled is beyond doubt; the exact mode of its accomplishment is known to God.
(2)The Political Standpoint.
Agencies are already at work for the establishment of a confederacy of European States—not the least significant of the many signs that the end of the age is approaching. The movement towards confederacy is doubtless receiving an impetus from the great upheaval in Europe. A circular issued in December, 1914, and distributed far and wide, announced the formation of a committee of influential men with the object of promoting a "European Federation." The circular says: "In sight of the present situation of ruin it ought to be the general opinion that a firmer economical and political tie is of utmost importance for all nations without exception, and that particularly for Europe the narrower bond of a federation, based on equality and interior independence of all partaking states, is of urgent necessity, which public opinion ought to demand."
A pamphlet published by the Committee recommends that the union of states shallbe economical, political, and legal, with an international army as a common guarantee, and that European Federation should become the principal and most urgent political battle-cry for the masses of all European nations, and declares that "when the Governments are willing, when the public opinion of all peoples forces them to be willing, there is no doubt but that a reasonable and practical union of nations will prove to be as possible and natural as is at present a union of provinces, cantons, territories, whose populations often show more difference of race and character than those of nations now at hostilities." The Committee calls upon the peoples of Europe to suffer the diplomatists no longer to dispose of them like slaves and by militarism to lash them to fury against each other. It calls upon them to see to it that never and nowhere should a member of any body or Government be elected who is not an advocate of the Federation, and that the trade union, society, or club to which any individual belongs should express sympathy with the movement in meetings and in votes. "The people," it is said, "have it now in their power, more than ever before, to control the Powers."
The formation of ten federated states, covering at least the area of the ancient Empire at the end of the first century of the present era, may be effected in two ways, either by the peaceful methods of arbitration and treaty, or as a result of strife and confusion. That the present European War will be succeeded by efforts for the creation of permanent international harmony and universal peace is probable, as is also some attempt at such a federation as is proposed by the above-mentioned Committee. On the other hand, sinister indications abound to-day which point to industrial strife and revolution rather than peace. The condition of the industrial world presents a gloomy prospect indeed. There are ominous signs of keener conflict than ever between capital and labour. The forces of Socialism, Syndicalism, Communism, &c., are rapidly increasing in power and in international activity, and their avowed aims presage anything but peace in the near future. We may take, for example, the declared objects of "The Alliance of the Social Democracy"—now incorporated in the International Working Men's Association—"To destroyall States and all Churches with all their institutions and laws, religious, political, juridical, financial, magisterial, academical, economical, and social, and to establish in their place industrial co-operation and collective ownership of land and capital." All this sounds very pretentious, and would probably fail of complete accomplishment, but the agencies at work for it are strong. Attempts on a large scale would certainly lead to unprecedented disorder and chaos.
Not improbably the ten kingdoms of the reconstructed Roman Empire will arise as a result of political and social confusion. Thus it was in the case of the French Revolution and the consequent uprising of Napoleon. A repetition of such events on a far wider scale in the future is quite conceivable. In the prophetic vision given to the Apostle John, the beast was seen "coming up out of the sea" (Rev. 13. 1). Now the sea is in Scripture used figuratively of the nations, its characteristic restlessness symbolising their commotion and strife. Compare the words of Isaiah: "Ah, the uproar of manypeoples, which roar like the roaring of the seas; and the rushing of nations, that rush like the rushing of many waters! The nations shall rush like the rushing of many waters: but He shall rebuke them" (Isa. 17. 12, 13; see also Psa. 65. 7; and Ezek. 26. 3). To national unrest the Lord Jesus applied similar language when He foretold to the disciples that there would be "upon the earth distress of nations, in perplexity for the roaring of the sea and the billows; men fainting for fear, and for expectation of the things which are coming on the world" (Luke 21. 25, 26). So also the waters which John had seen in his vision are described by the angel as "peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues" (Rev. 17. 15). Daniel, too, saw the four great beasts come up from the sea as a result of the breaking forth of the four winds of the Heaven upon it, an undoubted representation of a condition of national disturbance (Dan. 7. 2, 3). That the beast of Revelation 13. 1 was seen coming up out of the sea points, therefore, to the probability that the ten kings who will have brief authority over the revived Empire will be raised to their kingdom, not by constitutional methods, but as the result of revolutions and the collapse ofpresent-day governments and institutions.
Should any great measure of success attend the syndicalist and communist movements of the day, and especially if they are internationalised, the inevitable revolutions and disorder would almost certainly issue, as revolutions have so frequently issued, in despotism and autocracy, and perhaps in this way the ten kings would arise. The overthrow of the governments in the countries involved would remove what has certainly been the great restraint upon lawlessness[A]from the times of the apostles until now. Everything would be ripe for the appearance of a universal potentate. The cry would arise for "a man," a controlling organiser to bring order out of chaos. The unstable character of the rule of the ten kings, and the impoverishment of their kingdoms, would lead them, as a matter of diplomacy, to hand over their authority to him.