The Final Division of the Roman Empire
Into Ten Kingdoms
by Benjamin Wills NewtonTHE present condition of Europe is causing deep anxiety to those who desire for it a continuance of tranquility! The arrangements of the Congress of Vienna at the close of the last great Continental war failed to satisfy, and have on various occasions been already set aside. France is peculiarly dissatisfied, and is desirous of altering the territorial distribution of Europe, Syria, and Western Asia.
England on the other hand, anxious chiefly for repose, is sensitively alive to every attempt to disturb the present balance of power, which she has so long laboured to preserve. It is well, therefore, that we should be reminded, on the sure authority of Scripture, that a time must surely come sooner or later when a territorial arrangement, very different from the present, will be effected in Turkey as well as in Central Europe. It is our duty both to believe and to declare this, if we examine the Word of God.
The part of Scripture on which the evidence of this mainly rests is the Book of Daniel. Many of the predictions of Daniel refer to events that are now long past, and in all such instances the truth of his prophecies has been abundantly attested by fulfillment. When, 600 years before Christ, the punishment of Jerusalem commenced at its capture by Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel prophesied that four successive Empires should arise from among the Gentiles; each holding a place of recognized supremacy in the earth during the time of their respective continuance, and each commissioned to hold Jerusalem in subjection. All this has been fulfilled. Prom childhood we are familiar with the names of Chaldæa, Persia, Greece and Rome. We know how they reigned supremely; we know how they trampled down Jerusalem.
The fourth—the Roman—is represented in Daniel 2 by a symbol, which, while it indicated unity, indicates likewise that this Empire would be found to exist in two distinct branches, viz., by the two iron legs of "the Image." From the very commencement of the Roman Empire, nothing could be more marked than the distinction between its Eastern and Western divisions. The Eastern, the Romans conquered from the Greeks. They found it full of a civilization and refinement that had no counterpart among themselves. Chaldæa, Egypt and Tyre had made it from the earliest ages the home of the world’s greatness; and afterwards, Greece, under Alexander and his successors, established throughout the East that intellectual pre-eminence for which her colonies in Asia Minor had already prepared the way. Greek institutions; Greek philosophy; the Greek language and Greek laws had rooted themselves in the East when Rome conquered it; and this moral dominance of Greece the Romans sought not to disturb. In the West, on the other band, Rome found all that she there subdued dark and barbarous—unreached by the light of civilization—except where Tyre or Carthage had planted a few colonies; and into these unformed regions she laboured to introduce Latin institutions; the Latin language; Latin laws. Nor has this distinction ever been obliterated. The division of the Empire under later Emperors the rivalry of the Greek and Latin Churches; and finally, the conquests of the Turks have all contributed, under God’s Providence, to perpetuate the distinction between the Greek (or Eastern) and the Latin (or Western) branches of the Roman Empire. The Eastern branch is now being revived, It is being roused from its sleep of ages; and, as it revives, we shall find the distinctions more and more strongly marked. Greek institutions and Greek energy, modified, as of old, by connection with Orientalism and Judaism (for the Jews, whilst yet unconverted, will return to Palestine), will give to the Eastern branch of the Roman Empire a character of distinctness too manifest to be ignored. Indeed, we already find the expression "Greek branch of the Roman Empire," after being disused for centuries, again adopted by writers of the day.
We also learn from Daniel that the final result of the various changes through which the Roman Empire has passed and is passing, in its Greek and Latin branches, will be the division of its territories into Ten Kingdoms; that those kingdoms, though distinct, will be federally united ; that they will be alike In political constitution, and will unitedly inherit that same supremacy of power which had been severally possessed by the Chaldæan, Persian and Greek Empires, and by the Roman Empire in the time of its unity.
If, then, the whole Roman Empire—‘H oikoumenh, or Orbis Terrarum, as the Romans called it—is finally to be divided into Ten Kingdoms; we must, if we wish to mark the sphere in which these Kingdoms are to be developed, determine with as much precision as we may be able the territorial extent of the Empire. When it first assumed its full Imperial standing in succession to Greece, after Augustus Cæsar conquered Cleopatra, it attained its widest territorial development under Trajan.
The countries then included within its limits were, in Europe—England and Scotland (not Ireland), Spain and Portugal, France, Savoy, Belgium and parts of Holland, and Prussia etc., west of the Rhine. Switzerland, Italy, Greece, all the islands of the Mediterranean, Turkey, and Austria south of the Danube; including Bosnia, Servia and Bulgaria, and the ancient Dacia north of the Danube.
In Asia. The Turkish dominions—Assyria being the most easterly province, and the north of Arabia to Egypt the southern limit. This division, of course, includes Palestine and Asia Minor.
In Africa. Egypt and the whole northern coast—Sallé, a little outside the Straits of Gibraltar, being the most westerly city.
Such are the countries finally to be divided into Ten parts. England is at present little disposed to acquiesce in such a change as this. Rather than there should be any great dislocation of present territorial arrangements, she would prefer they should remain altogether unaltered. She hopes that the spread of Commerce and the pursuit of wealth will supersede the desire for mere territorial aggrandizement, and that the restlessness now visible in certain nations will thus gradually be stilled. It is certain, however, that present arrangements cannot ultimately stand; and although it may be true that the time for the final division into Ten Kingdoms is not yet come, for it will very nearly, if not quite, synchronize with the return of the Jews in unbelief to their own land, and their recognition as a nation there; yet, it is not improbable that we are approaching the period when the steps preparatory to that end are to be taken. At any rate, we are sure that until the Ten Kingdoms have been developed, the territorial mutations of "the Roman Empire" will not have attained their last phase. Change must follow upon change till then; and not only are we taught in Daniel that Ten Kingdoms are to divide the Roman world between them, but we further learn that a like form of political constitution will be found in them all; for each of the toes are of "iron and clay" mingled. And though we are not told that these will be found in exactly the same proportions in all, of this we may be sure, that that form of government which the iron and clay denote (popular or constitutional monarchy) will exist in each of the Ten Kingdoms. Accordingly since the Congress of Vienna in 1815 we have seen Constitutional principles, after many a struggle and many a check, making steady progress in most of these countries. In 1815 they were almost confined to England. The Continental Powers hated and withstood them; yet, notwithstanding all their efforts, these principles have not only received increased development in England, but have been adopted by Belgium, the Romano-German provinces; France; Portugal; Spain; Greece; and even by Italy and Austria! Who would have expected a few years ago to see Naples and Austria constitutionalized? No government hated Constitutionalism more than Austria; yet they have bowed to a necessity which they saw it was hopeless to resist; and we may with certainty affirm that constitutional principles of government will finally prevail in every country of the Roman world, and that, too, before the completion of the subdivision into Ten Kingdoms; for the feet of the Image, and not merely the toes, were formed of "iron and clay."
But again. The Ten Kingdoms when developed will, although distinct kingdoms, be nevertheless federally united, which is clearly indicated by the symbols in chapters 2 and 7. "Ten horns" (chp. 7) have no isolated action. They cannot move except concurrently and the same is true of the "ten toes" (chp. 2).
It is very evident, then, that that part of the earth within the Roman boundary has a peculiar destiny of its own. The Ten Kingdoms, which are to inherit the supreme power which Rome and the preceding Empires successively exercised, will, by the very fact of inheriting such power, be distinguished from all other countries in the earth. Moreover, not only will they have like political institutions, but a yet stronger distinctive characteristic, in the fact of being united in a federal bond and having finally a federal Head—The Antichrist! Therefore we may expect to see the line of its territorial demarcation become more and more distinct, as the time for the development of the Ten Kingdoms approaches. And if any Kingdom external to the Roman world (as e.g. Russia) has endeavored to absorb or bind up with itself any territory, as Bessarabia, belonging to the Roman world, we may expect to see such union dissolved. And if any kingdom within the Roman world has sought to force into political identification with itself any country external to the Roman world, it is probable that such attempted identification will be frustrated; if not by the absolute separation of the countries thus sought to be attached, yet by their legislative separation. This last question one would mention with a certain reserve. It affects the relation of England to Ireland, India and her Colonies; and the relation of Austria to most that she now possesses north of the Danube; and of France, Spain and Portugal, to such of their possessions as are beyond the Roman limits.
Since the Congress of Vienna, few events of importance have occurred in Europe that have not tended to effect some one or other of these results. The result of the war with Russia was to bring the Greek or Eastern branch of "the Roman Empire" into recognized connexion with the Western. Russia, which is without the Roman boundary, was compelled to resign the greater part of Bessarabia, that being within the Roman boundary, just as Holland was at a previous period compelled to resign Belgium, which is within. In conformity with this principle, we may expect to see Prussia relinquish the provinces she holds west of the Rhine and to see Baden, Wurtemburg, and all those parts of Bavaria that fall within the Roman limits, separated from the control of German Federalism.
For an example of a case in which a country within the Roman world seeks to amalgamate with itself or to act in federal union with countries external to the Roman limit we may turn to Austria, whose chief territorial possessions, as well as the seat of her power south of the Danube, come within the Roman Empire. She has not only attempted to amalgamate with herself much that is external to the Roman boundary (as the greater part of Hungary is), but has also endeavored to act in federal union with Prussia and Northern Germany! It will not be denied that the attempt has signally failed, and we may expect that, sooner or later, Austria will recede further and further from the German Bond and unite herself more closely with England, France and other countries of the Roman world; and those countries which Austria is vainly seeking to amalgamate with herself will probably be either absolutely or legislatively separated from her. The relations of England to Ireland; and of England, France and Spain to their colonies or possessions without the Roman boundary, must be subjected to the same rule. England’s colonies are, for the most part, already legislatively separated. They are practically independent. Hanover, once connected with England. has, by the providence of God, become entirely separate, and moves altogether in another political sphere.
That the whole Roman world will be finally divided into Ten Kingdoms—those kingdoms being federally united—that they will all have a like political construction, and will unitedly inherit that supreme power in the earth which is the endowment of the empires represented by the symbolic Image, is not matter of opinion but of revealed certainty. Nor will it be doubted that, when the Ten Kingdoms are developed, five will be found in the Greek, or Eastern, and five in the Latin, or Western half of the Roman Empire—the symbol in Daniel 2 being five toes on each foot of "the Image."
Many have asked whether there be anything in Scripture that enables us to define with precision the respective territorial extent of each of the ten future kingdoms of the Roman world? To this we must reply in the negative. Daniel 8 does indeed enable us to say that Greece, Egypt, Syria and the districts immediately contiguous to Constantinople in Europe and Asia will form four of the five in the Eastern part, yet we are not able, even in this case, to fix with exact certainty their respective boundaries. Any enumeration, therefore, must be to a great extent conjectural. But we shall probably not very widely err if we suppose the final division of the Latin branch to be as follows: —
1. Great Britain (the Roman Britannia and Caledonia).
2. France, enlarged to the Rhine on the east, thus including part of Holland; all Belgium; Luxemburg and the Prussian province west of the Rhine; Savoy and Switzerland up to Lake Constance; and doubtless Algeria will continue annexed to France.
3. Spain and Portugal (Hispania and Lusitania) united, with Morocco annexed, as Algeria to France.
4. Northern and Central Italy, including Venetia and Rome. V. Austria without Venetia, and all she now holds north of the Danube and west of the Roman Vallum (viz., Bohemia, Moravia, Gallicia and the central parts of Hungary), but compensated by the acquisition of Baden, Wurtemburg and part of Bavaria east of the Rhine. Austria will, in all probability, possess the ancient Dacia (i.e. Moldavia, Wallachia, Bessarahia and the eastern skirt of Hungary); all Transylvania and such parts of the Turkish dominions in Europe as did not belong to the Greek branch.
As respects the division of the Eastern branch, we are greatly assisted by Daniel 8, which tells us that the four kingdoms, formed by the partition of the dominions of Alexander the Great, will be found existent in "the latter time" (vv. 8, 22, 23). Two of them (Greece and Egypt) are already reconstituted, although in a partially developed form. Taking, therefore, the ancient partition as a general guide, four out of the five divisions of the Eastern branch would be:—
1. Greece augmented by the Ionian Islands; Thessaly and all the ancient Macedonian possessions in Europe, excepting Thrace and some of the islands of the Archipelago.
2. Thrace (Roumelia); its coast extending from the Island of Thasos to the Sea of Marmora; also a broad strip of territory extending from the Gulf of Satalia in the south, along the western coast of Asia Minor, by the Sea of Marmora and the northern coast of the Black Sea, as far as the River Parthene. Several chief islands on the coast such as Rhodes, Cos, Lamos and Lemnos, belong to this division.
3. Egypt, together with the coast of Africa, as far as Tripoli; also Cœlo-Syria and the southern coast of Asia Minor, from the Gulf of Satalia to the Gulf of Scanderoon.
4. Syria, with all the northeastern and central parts of Asia Minor; also Mesopotamia, Assyria, and every other part of Alexander’s dominions that fell under Roman rule, not included in the aforementioned divisions.
5. The Neapolitan dominions (anciently Magna Gracia) and Sicily, with probably the opposite coast of Africa (Tripoli) appended.
As regards the rest of Europe that falls without the Roman boundary, its history is comparatively unimportant. It is not the subject of definite Scripture prophecy as the Roman nations are; it is not the inheritor of the power symbolized by "the Image." Judging, however, from present appearances, there seems strong reason to believe that the territorial form of the past would be to a great extent restored. The Jews also (this we know certainly from Scripture) will return in unbelief to Jerusalem, and reoccupy the Land and City of their fathers The generation that will gather around and worship the last great Head of Gentile power, Antichrist, would thus circumstantially, as well as morally, present a close resemblance to that which gathered against the Lord of Glory to reject and crucify Him.
To those who observe what is now passing around us, it must be very evident that, whilst the apparent giant strength of such countries as Russia and America is being weakened, the power of those of the Roman world, as France, Austria, Spain, Italy, Egypt, etc. is being increased and consolidated. A few years ago, many entertained the expectation that American Republicanism and Russian Despotism would ultimately divide the world between, them. The slightest knowledge, however, of Dan. ii. dispels these illusions. There can be little doubt that Asiatic, and probably Russian power, will continue to be formidable, and also probable that formidable power will continue to reside in America. But neither to America nor to Russia, nor to the hordes of Central Asia, is the supreme power, denoted by "the Image," given. It is given to the Roman nations till the great end comes. But not till the Ten Kingdoms are formed and federally united will the strength of the power to be exercised by them be appreciated.
In effecting theta territorial alterations, there may be a great European convulsion, in which England may be smitten for her evil; or there may be no great catastrophe; on the contrary, tranquillity and peace may for the present reign, and the changes possibly be effected gradually and quietly. The bright sunshine of prosperity may shine upon the nations, and "human progress" advance with proud and rejoicing steps. But there is such a thing as prosperity judicially sent to harden and to blind, after admonition has been rejected and warnings scorned. It was so with Pharaoh of old; and similar will be, we know, the exaltation of the. Ten Roman Kingdoms at the close. Great indeed will be their glory; mighty their strength but Armageddon will be their gathering-place (Rev.16:16), the Valley of Jehoshaphat their grave (Joel 3:13). There they will meet Him Who will come forth to tread the winepress of the fury of Almighty God (Rev. 19).
In conclusion. The only way of resisting Antichristianism or Antichrist, is by seeking under God’s blessing to instill into minds the pure principles of Scripture Truth. The believing people of God alone can act for Him, only they cannot act for Him apart from the close guidance of His holy word.
If "in the Evil day" the servant of Christ is to withstand "the methods of the devil," that which our great Captain has placed in our hands as the distinct weapon of our welfare is that sword of the Spirit—the Word of God. But we cannot use it unless we are duly instructed in it.
THE TEN KINGDOMS: THEIR GOVERNMENT AND PROBABLE FINAL REARRANGEMENT
" The toes of the feet were part of iron and part of clay " - Daniel 2:42
" And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall rise " - Daniel 7:24; 8:22
The long period which intervenes between the most momentous intervention of God in judgment which has vet, occurred—the Flood—and that, when the Son of Man will be brought before the Ancient of Days and invested with the governmental power of earth, has already measured more than 4,000 years.
Within this period, three separate bodies have been called out into positions of corporate privilege and responsibility.
I. Israel, which originated in the call of Abraham.
II. The Gentile nations, who are appointed to governmental supremacy during the time of Jerusalem’s punishment, commencing with the triumphs of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan.1:1).
III. The professing Christian Church, beginning at Pentecost.
The histories of all are kept carefully separate in Scripture. - After they severally commence, they continue to what is called in Matthew "the end of the age," when the time for the next intervention of God will have come, and when the histories of the Jews as an unbelieving people, of the ruling Gentile kingdoms and of the professing Church will concurrently end. It is the second of these "bodies" to which our attention is directed in the Book of Daniel, viz., the Dynasty of the Gentiles.
The peculiar dignity and endowment of these Empires did not so much consist in their being possessed of power, whether golden or clay-iron. as that they formed part of the wondrous "Image" in chapter ii., which, it must be borne in mind, embraces in outline the whole of this Gentile dynasty. The Empires therefore represented in it—Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, Roman—which have successively held sway in the earth, are not only endowed with power to regulate themselves or assail others (such power may be possessed by any nation not falling within scope of the "Image," Russia or America, e.g.), but the distinctive characteristic of the Image-nations is, that authority has been granted them by God to be supreme (1:1) in such sort, as for the mainsprings of influential power in the earth to be effectually under their control. Even the clay-iron kingdoms are to inherit this supremacy. They too will be the center of controlling influence in the earth!
The vision of "the Image" therefore enables us unhesitatingly to say that nothing can prevent the nations of the Roman empire being finally divided into ten, answering to the "ten toes." Nothing can prevent the "clay-iron" principles of government (i.e. Sovereign and Parliament) prevailing among them all; nothing prevent these last ten kingdoms being ultimately possessed in federal union of that lordly supremacy which pertains to them, as forming a part of this "Image" so marvelously endowed. God has appointed and God has revealed these things, therefore they shall all be fulfilled in their season.
The subject to which attention is chiefly directed in chapter 2 is the depreciation of the metals—gold, silver, brass, iron and clay-iron—indicating the gradual inferiority in the character of the power and rule manifested in distinct and successive periods. Nebuchadnezzar’s was an autocracy (5:19). Persia an aristocratic monarchy; power being shared with the nobles (6: 7, 8). Greece a military oligarchy; Rome a democracy; the Emperors being chosen by the people but, when seated on the throne, they were Emperors. During the reign of the Imperial Cæsars, though the people were supposed to originate the power of their sovereign, yet they were not entitled to legislate for that sovereign. They were not made their own governors. The Monarch had not then become the mere functionary of an authority, of which the real source and controlling power was vested in the people themselves.
But that era too has passed (the iron). Now, among the nations of the world, we hear nothing but the theory of self-government extolled. The condition of some of the European nations, especially of France, affords a remarkable illustration of the earnest and laborious effort being made to mingle the iron and clay together. But it cannot he satisfactorily effected. Iron and clay will not cleave one to the other (v. 43). For men to be governed and at the same time to be governors of themselves is impossible. The legitimate result of this would be the right of each individual member of society to govern himself; for what reason is there why the will of a majority should be submitted to more than any other will? Indeed, while man continues as he is, it is certain that both intelligence and truth will be with the few, not with the many. As human things now are, the path chosen by majorities cannot be the path of wisdom, truth or peace!
That any power of government should continue to subsist where principles virtually subversive of all government are fostered even by the governors themselves, is a marvel that can only be ascribed to the secret sustaining power of God, Who has in mercy appointed that power to govern shall, in spite of every effort to destroy it, continue in the earth until the end; for it has pleased Him to, say "There shall be in it of the strength of the iron." Therefore, every effort to extirpate the "iron" or effectually to neutralize it by the admixture of "clay" must fail. Yet the knowledge of this does not lessen the sorrow of beholding those who hold authority from God and therefore standing in a place as officially divine; it does not lessen the sorrow of seeing such deliberately quit that place and mingle themselves with those whom God has not officially raised from the ordinary level of man. Either God or the people are the source of power. Both cannot be true. The voice of the people is either the voice of God or of unregenerate man guided by that spirit who "worketh in all the children of disobedience." It is either the intention of God that men should govern themselves or that they should be governed by power emanating from and directed by Him. One of these things must be true, the other false; and therefore I repeat, it is a sorrowful and evil thing to see the governors themselves eagerly joining in the general cry; disowning .their title to authority from God and gladly owning the people as those who confer the authority at first and have the right to control it when given, thus "mingling themselves with the seed of men!" We are accustomed now to the words "sovereign people" and it is remarkable how distinctly the people are in this chapter recognized as sharing governmental power. as in constitutional principles with King and Parliament, [Throughout this vision they who hold governmental power from God are represented by metal, and regarded as being in a place officially divine; and those who are ruled over by clay, as occupying a mere human place.]
One result of the attempt to mingle iron and clay together is, that the sovereign power is "partly strong and partly brittle," as one might expect that to be in which pottery ware is conjoined with iron. The effect of this is abundantly seen in the incapacity of governments to act unless they carry with them the will, not only of the majority but of a large majority of those whom they govern. Modern governments fear to punish except the feelings of the community be thoroughly enlisted on their side. Regulating ordinances may be imperatively required, but it depends on the will of the community whether or not they shall be enacted! How often the arm of government has been paralyzed, those who have exercised its powers may best tell. But it cannot be wondered at: Who would venture to use a sceptre in which iron and pottery-ware are joined in precarious union with the same confidence with which they would wield one formed of gold or iron? There can be no more decided evidence of a position being wrong, than when it enchains the energies of good and -renders its presence nugatory. They who carry into effect the governmental principles of the present hour are constrained to put Truth on an equality with error; cringe to falsehood and screen the real flagrancy of evil. The governmental relation of England to Romanism in Ireland and elsewhere is a lamentable instance of this.
We can scarcely doubt that such violation of the laws and principles of God’s moral government must entail judicial visitation from His hand. The very circumstance of the springs of government being regulated by the hands of those who should be subject to the control and guidance of authority must undermine the foundations of power and finally entail its own chastisement. But, when in addition to this, we remember that the latter days are peculiarly marked by increase of evil—that "perilous times" are to come and mockers to arise; and that government instead of resisting is fettered by their influence—we can easily see that a harvest of iniquity must under such circumstances inherit judgment. "Ye have heard," said the Apostle, "that Antichrist shall come." His coming will be an act of judicial visitation on the part of God. The "brittle" nature of the authority held by the Ten Monarchs who at that time will subdivide the Roman Earth, will be one reason why they will peculiarly welcome the advent of "one" who will strengthen them by the greatness of his wondrous power. Besides the attractiveness of his intellect and unrivalled glory, God will, as a judicial infliction from Himself, send them strong delusion and put it into their hearts to "agree and give their kingdom to him!" (Rev. 17:12, 13).
The increasing development of popular-monarchic principles through the countries which fall within the scope of that which was once the Roman Empire is a fact which none can question. The wars that convulsed Europe under Napoleon Bonaparte broke up the connections which had for ages subsisted among the Western European Kingdoms. The settlement at Vienna (1815), which succeeded these convulsions, attempted to remedy the disorganization and to reunite the scattered kingdoms. But it did not last, being on principles entirely opposed to the revealed intentions of God. He has revealed that the whole body of nations which once composed the Roman Empire shall be brought into a condition in which they shall answer to the "clay-iron" feet and toes of the great "Image." The arrangements at Vienna went far to hinder this and accordingly they have been set aside. Change after change has occurred, all tending to resuscitate the countries of the Roman Empire and to bring them into a divided unity; a unity based upon similarity of institutions, interests and laws.
The establishment of governments that are virtually or actually democratic-monarchies (i.e. Sovereign and Parliament) in England, Belgium. France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Austria, Greece, etc., and the favour with which the principles of Western Europe are regarded in the East, indicate the approach of the period when clay mingled with iron will fitly represent the character of governmental power throughout all the Roman Empire. The final subdivision into the Ten Kingdoms, denoted by the "ten toes," is an event which will almost immediately precede the End and will probably be contemporaneous with the national establishment of Israel in their own Land. The rise of him, to whom the Ten Kingdoms give their power—Antichrist—soon follows; and then the end will come. The "Image" is smitten and becomes "as the chaff of the summer threshing floors." The "Stone" that smites it "becomes a great mountain and fills the whole earth!" (v. 35).
I would only further observe, that "the Image is represented as existing in its integrity at the very end. The blow falls upon the feet of "the Image," because they are regarded as being in active existence at the close. The Ten Kingdoms inherit from the Empires that have preceded them, for the whole Gentile system is one fabric, and the later parts could not be what they are apart from those which are anterior.
It is desirable to ascertain as precisely as possible the changes which these visions would lead us to anticipate in the countries falling within the Roman Empire. There are some we can infer with certainty; others with a probability almost amounting to certainty. We cannot doubt the same governmental principles—though heir it is the adulteration as well as depredation of power—will prevail in all the Ten Kingdoms when developed, because all the "toes" of the Image were alike formed of "clay and iron." Again; seeing that the "legs" were two and that the Roman Empire has existed in eastern and western branches, we may expect that five kingdoms will be formed in each branch, even as the "toes" were five on either foot.
Moreover the "ten toes," though distinct from each other, are nevertheless parts of one "Image," giving a kind of corporate connection (as the "ten horns" springing from the head of one beast in chapter 7); distinctly presenting a form of compact, though divided unity.
Lastly; we learn that the possession of supreme power in the earth, which no other nations will be able successfully to dispute, is as much the endowment of the "toes" as the higher parts of "the Image." Accordingly, however great and threatening the power of any nation such as Russia e.g., yet it shall not finally be able to take supremacy from the nations falling within the Roman Empire. It shall neither succeed in introducing among them its autocratic principles nor prevent clay-iron from spreading among them. Nothing can frustrate the Word of God. Dread of Russia may lead at last to a more united defence of their common principles and so tend to consolidate their final union, but it will not take from the countries of the Roman earth their appointed supremacy nor prevent the development of their "clay-iron" power. Things are steadily advancing towards their appointed end, however appearances may vary. In the early part of the 19th century men thought the world was passing hopelessly under the despotic rule of one great conqueror; with little apparent probability of "clay-iron" principles being spread. And when Bonaparte fell and the restored governments reconstituted themselves at Vienna, "the clay and the iron" still seemed unlikely to prevail. Even England had but partially received "the clay," for the laws which have since so extended the elective power of the people and, made them the virtual legislators of the land, had not then been enacted. But since that time, how marked the progress of these principles has been! Portugal, Spain, France, Algeria, Belgium, Greece, Austria and Italy have received or are receiving them; some we know; as by the shock of an electric stroke! The return of the Jews into Syria, whenever that is effected, will probably be the means of establishing them in one most important part of the Turkish empire.
The separation of Belgium which was in the Roman Empire, from Holland which was not, the independence of Greece and its acquirement of a constitutional government; the introduction of European principles into North Africa by means of France, have been events suddenly accomplished against obstacles apparently hopeless, and strikingly evidence the sovereign power of God..
The sudden overthrow of the despotism of Austria, effected almost in a day, was a remarkable event; but its detachment from Germany (for Germany with the exception of Baden, Wurtemberg and Bavaria was not in the Roman Empire) will be more remarkable still. Many a tie has bound Austria to Germany, but they are evidently being loosened. Austria is falling into the system of the Roman nations and Germany is retiring into a peculiar system of her own, that finally we may expect their governments to be almost as decidedly contrasted as that of England with Hanover.
We must not indeed attempt to predict the time nor the mode of these changes. A river makes many a bend; sometimes apparently retracing. In 1848 democratic fury seemed to be let loose upon the nations. It caused each throne to tremble and the "iron" seemed likely to be driven from the earth and supplanted by the "clay." But the tumult was stilled; the mad and evil power bridled; and despotism threatened. But we need only wait. The Word of God is sure. Monarchs shall not destroy "the clay," neither shall the people rid themselves of "the iron."
It is true indeed that we can speak with certainty only of the End; we cannot predict the steps leading to that End, because Scripture supplies no detail during the time Israel ceases to exist nationally in their own land, e.g. We are unable to say whether the political and territorial changes which must finally be effected in Europe are to be produced by a general European war or by other agency. But this we can say, that no power can ultimately prevent the development of "clay-iron" principles in all countries of the Roman earth nor deprive those countries of their final united federal supremacy.
The changes therefore that may be expected in those nations which fall within the Roman Empire may be classified under three heads.
First; the introduction of popular monarchic principles into those countries which have not yet received them.
Secondly; an alteration in the present territorial divisions throughout the whole extent of the Roman empire, so as to form "Ten kingdoms" therein.
Thirdly; the dissolution of governmental union between countries, one of which did fall and the other of which did not fall within the Roman Empire.
As regards the first, comparatively little remains to be accomplished.
As respects the alteration of territorial arrangements much more remains to be effected. Chapter 8:8, 22, prove beyond a doubt, that Greece, Egypt and Syria (reaching to and beyond the Euphrates) and the rest of Turkey in Europe and Asia will form four of the eastern kingdoms. We cannot with certainty name the others, but there seems little doubt that France, Spain and England will continue kingdoms to the end. We must, however as to these specific points, wait the unfolding of events. The accomplishment of the final division will probably precede very little the closing hour of the Dispensation.
Thirdly; with respect to the dissolution of unions now subsisting between countries falling and not falling within the Roman Empire, there is the case in which a country external holds authority over one within. Such was the relation of Holland to Belgium. It has been dissolved. We may expect a similar dissolution in all cases where the German Confederation exercises authority west of the Rhine (as Alsace and Lorraine) or south of the Danube; we may therefore expect their separation from Germany and annexation to some of the countries falling within the Roman Empire.
But a more difficult question is, where a country external to the Roman Empire is subjected to one within. Those thus circumstanced are Ireland; the central part of Hungary and all German Austria north of the Danube; also the colonies of England, France, Spain, Portugal. This cannot perhaps, be determined as confidently, but there can be little doubt that the union between such will be dissolved as Hanover from England; if not fully, yet to the extent of distinct and independent legislatures being conceded (e.g. Home Rule), as indeed is already done in the leading colonies of England. The importance of such separate legislation may not perhaps be fully apprehended now; but, when the hour arrives for a "decree" to go forth enforcing the worship of Antichrist, with consequent rejection of Christ and of God among the Ten Kingdoms, the value of a separate legislation will he more distinctly felt.
As regards Germany, it is not to be expected that strict constitutional government—the true "clay-iron form—will ever subsist there. This, however, is mere opinion; for the prophecy of Daniel says nothing respecting Germany; and prophecy is our only sore guide. But the mere possession of that form of government is not the distinctive characteristic of the Ten Kingdoms. Their distinctive characteristic is the possession of this form in corporate or federal connection with each other and as parts of the "Image," whereby they receive that peculiar endowment of supreme controlling power we have been considering.
It is an affecting thought that England, so highly favored as she has been, is using her advantages in nurturing the very principles out of which the last systematized form of human evil is to be formed. England; pursuing her favorite plans, is ever ready when expediency requires it, to smile on falsehood or to frown on Truth. Human fraternity is everything in her sight. She deems her latitudinarian commercial system to be the best remedy for the consolidation of the social and political institutions of rival nations without unduly fettering the energies of men; but in the meantime, Truth is forgotten or despised. Would God it were otherwise! But at present, the moral features of England, no less than her geographical connection with the Roman World, mark her as one of those kingdoms that are "to give their strength and power to the Beast" and to engage in the last conflict against "the King of Kings" (Rev.17:12-14)!
But sorrowful as this is, it is even more sorrowful to see the indifference of the Church of God to these things! It is the privilege and duty of the Church to consider and judge all things according to the Word of God and to treasure His principles because they are His. There are certain principles connected with the established order of the universe; there are others connected with the moral government of God, and it is the duty of the Church as much to be vigilant against the perversion of these as to watch over the faith committed to themselves; thus a period, when men who have either willfully or ignorantly violated them are triumphing in the supposed success of their counsels, is one, in which the Church is peculiarly called to watchfulness and to confession both for others and themselves. They will not be able to stem the tide of evil, nor is the government of nations a sphere in which they are now intended to act; but they may weigh things according to the Word of God: they may keep themselves separate and they may testify. They may warn and perhaps preserve others. But if, instead of this, even Christians despise the testimonies of the prophetic Scriptures; wander into the world’s sphere; adopt and vindicate the principles of the day and connect themselves with the very things that are to be made like "the chaff of the summer threshing floor," how can there be any hope, I say not of the triumph of God’s Truth, but even of any testimony to it being maintained?
[ Note: 1815 Congress of Vienna.
1870 End of the Papal States
1914-18 World War I
1917-1991 USSR (Soviet Union).
1918 League of Nations
1929 Vatican State established (Lateran Treaty).
1939-45 World War II
1945 United Nations (UN) established.
1949 North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) established.
1949 Council of Europe established (Treaty of London).
1950 Robert Schuman speech on Europe.
1951 European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) established.
1957 Treaty of Rome establishes the European Economic Community (EEC).
1993 The EEC becomes the European Union (Maastricht Treaty). 2002 Euro Single currency. 2004 EU Constitution. 2007 Lisbon Treaty.]
Council of the European Union
European Council, 18-19/02/2016
Britain in the European Union
Following intense negotiations, EU leaders achieved a deal which strengthens Britain's special status in the EU. It is a legally binding and irreversible decision by all 28 leaders. The settlement addresses all of Prime Minister Cameron's concerns without compromising EU fundamental values.
At the December 2015 European Council, the European Council agreed to find mutually satisfactory solutions in four areas of concern at its February meeting:
- sovereignty
- economic governance
- competitiveness
- social benefits and free movement
On 2 February 2016, President Donald Tusk put forward a proposal for a new settlement addressing all these concerns. The proposal served as the basis for negotiations during the meeting.
"I deeply believe that the UK needs Europe, and Europe needs the UK. To break the link now would be totally against our mutual interests. We have done all we could not to let that happen."
- Donald Tusk, President of the European Council
Download 7 PDF files of most of the 18-19 Feb 2016 European Council decisions:
Source: European Council
What is happening? - The UK's EU referendum
UK Prime Minister David Cameron has announced a referendum on whether Britain should remain in the European Union to be held on Thursday 23 June, [2016].
1. What are the main changes David Cameron has agreed?
Mr Cameron agreed a package of changes to the UK's membership of the EU after two days of intensive talks with other member states' leaders in Brussels in February. The agreement, which will take effect immediately if the UK votes to remain in the EU, includes changes to:
Sovereignty - There is an explicit commitment that the UK will not be part of an "ever closer [political] union" with other EU member states. This will be incorporated in an EU treaty change.
'Red card' for national parliaments - It will be easier for governments to band together to block unwanted legislation. If 55% of national EU parliaments object to a piece of EU legislation it will be rethought.
Eurozone - Britain can keep the pound while being in Europe, and its business trade with the bloc, without fear of discrimination. Any British money spent on bailing out Eurozone nations will be reimbursed.
Protection for the City of London - Safeguards for Britain's large financial services industry to prevent Eurozone regulations being imposed on it.
Competitiveness - The settlement calls on all EU institutions and member states to "make all efforts to fully implement and strengthen the internal market" and to take "concrete steps towards better regulation", including by cutting red tape.
EU Migrant welfare payments - The UK can decide to limit in-work benefits for EU migrants during their first four years in the UK. This so-called "emergency brake" can be applied in the event of "exceptional" levels of migration, but must be released within seven years - without exception.
Child benefit - Child benefit payments to migrant workers [from within the EU] for children living overseas to be recalculated to reflect the cost of living in their home countries.
Some limits on free movement - Denying automatic free movement rights to nationals of a country outside the EU who marry an EU national, as part of measures to tackle "sham" marriages. There are also new powers to exclude people believed to be a security risk - even if they have no previous convictions.
2. How does that differ from what he wanted?
Mr Cameron had originally wanted a complete ban on migrants sending child benefit abroad but had to compromise after some eastern European states rejected that and also insisted that existing claimants should continue to receive the full payment.
On how long the UK would be able to have a four-year curb on in-work benefits for new arrivals, Mr Cameron had to give way on hopes of it being in place for 13 years, settling for seven instead.
On financial regulation, a clause was inserted "to ensure the level-playing field within the internal market". This was in response to French fears that Britain was seeking special protection for the City of London that would have given it a competitive advantage.
Critics argue that the final deal falls well short of what Mr Cameron originally promised when he announced his plan for a referendum, particularly when it comes to returning powers from Brussels. It is not clear, for example, if the "red card" for national parliaments would ever be triggered in practice.
But most of the points in the draft agreement, with the exception of those mentioned above, have survived unchanged into the final deal.
3. What will the referendum question be?
The question is always crucial in any referendum. The Electoral Commission proposed the wording, which has been accepted by MPs: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" The options for voters will be 'Remain a member of the European Union' and 'Leave the European Union'.
4. Why is a [new] referendum being held?
Britain had a referendum in 1975 shortly after it had joined the then European Economic Comunity (EEC), or the Common Market as it was then called. The country voted to stay in then but there have been growing calls, from the public and politicians, for another vote because, they argue, the EU has changed a lot over the past 40 years, with many more countries joining and the organisation extending its [political and legislative] control over more aspects of people's daily lives. David Cameron initially resisted these calls but in 2013 he changed his mind.
5. How long would it take for Britain to leave the EU [in the event of a 'Leave' result] ?
The minimum period after a vote to leave would be two years. During that time Britain would continue to abide by EU treaties and laws, but not take part in any decision-making, as it negotiated a withdrawal agreement and the terms of its relationship with the [then current] 27 nation bloc. In practice it may take longer than two years, depending on how the negotiations go.
6. Could MPs block an EU exit if Britain votes for it?
The answer is that technically MPs could block an EU exit - but it would be seen as political suicide to go against the will of the people as expressed in a referendum. The referendum result is not legally binding - Parliament still has to pass the laws that will get Britain out of the 28 nation bloc, starting with the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.
The withdrawal agreement would also have to be ratified by Parliament - the House of Lords and/or the Commons could vote against ratification, according to a House of Commons library report.
It adds: "If the Commons resolves against ratification, the treaty can still be ratified if the Government lays a statement explaining why the treaty should nonetheless be ratified and the House of Commons does not resolve against ratification a second time within 21 days (this process can be repeated ad infinitum)."
In practice, [Conservative] MPs who voted to remain in the EU would be whipped to vote with the government. Any who defied the whip would have to face the wrath of voters at the next general election.
One scenario that could see the referendum result overturned, is if MPs forced a general election and a party campaigned on a promise to keep Britain in the EU, got elected and then claimed that the election mandate topped the referendum one. Two thirds of MPs would have to vote for a general election to be held before the next scheduled one in 2020.
7. Would leaving the EU mean the UK wouldn't have to abide by the European Court of Human Rights?
The ECHR in Strasbourg is not a European Union institution. It was set up by the Council of Europe, which has 47 members including Russia and Ukraine. So quitting the EU would not exempt the UK from its decisions.
The UK government is, however, committed to repealing the Human Rights Act which requires UK courts to treat the ECHR as setting legal precedents for the UK, in favour of a British Bill of Rights. As part of that, David Cameron is expected to announce measures that will boost the powers of courts in England and Wales to over-rule judgements handed down by the ECHR.
Source: excerpted from BBC News article "The UK's EU referendum: All you need to know." (25 February 2016)
EU reforms cannot be reversed, Donald Tusk says
BBC News | 24 February 2016
[ Michael Gove: EU court stands above nation states ]
The package of reforms negotiated by David Cameron cannot be reversed by European judges, according to the EU Council president.
Donald Tusk told MEPs the deal was "legally binding and irreversible".
It comes after Justice Secretary Michael Gove told the BBC the European Court of Justice (ECJ) could throw out some measures without EU treaty change.
Both Downing Street and attorney general Jeremy Wright say the reforms cannot be reversed.
A UK referendum on whether to remain a member of the EU will take place on 23 June, with the Conservative Party and David Cameron's cabinet divided over which side to support.
Mr Gove, one of five cabinet ministers campaigning for an EU exit, said that without treaty change all elements of the PM's renegotiation settlement were potentially subject to legal challenge.
"The facts are that the European Court of Justice is not bound by this agreement until treaties are changed and we don't know when that will be," he said.
He said Mr Cameron was "absolutely right that this is a deal between 28 nations all of whom believe it", adding: "But the whole point about the European Court of Justice is that it stands above the nation states."
But the PM's spokesman said the text of the deal would be deposited at the United Nations later on Wednesday, adding that this would "put beyond doubt that it is legally binding and irreversible in EU law".
Mr Tusk, who played a key role in negotiating the settlement, said it was "in conformity with the treaties and cannot be annulled by the European Court of Justice".
He said: "But it will only enter into force if the British people vote to stay. If they vote to leave, the settlement will cease to exist."
The UK's negotiation "was the first round… and the last", he added.
The more significant question is, perhaps, what is the value and status of the deal as a matter of EU law?
Mr Tusk was speaking at the first European Parliament session since the European Council summit where the reforms were agreed following drawn-out negotiations between leaders.
Earlier Downing Street responded to Mr Gove's comments on legality by citing Alan Dashwood, the former director of legal services at the EU, who said the "Decision" was a binding legal agreement reached by consensus and could only be amended or rescinded by consensus - or, "in other words, with the agreement of the UK".
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) was set up in the 1950s to ensure European law is interpreted and applied evenly in every EU country but many Tory MPs believe it has over-extended its jurisdiction and its powers should be rolled back.
Martin Schulz, the president of the European Parliament, said the guarantee that the UK would be exempted from ever-closer union would be "written exactly" into the treaties in the form it was agreed last week and "nobody can tell British voters other things".
Mr Wright, the government's senior law officer, told the BBC that although challenges could be brought to the European Court of Justice, the UK agreement had "very similar legal strength" to existing treaty obligations. "The suggestion that this agreement does not have legal effect until it is incorporated into EU treaties is not correct. That is not just my opinion - it is the opinion of this government's lawyers, lawyers for the EU, and, I suspect, the majority of lawyers in this country." Former attorney general Dominic Grieve told the BBC that Mr Gove was simply "wrong".
[ In full: Michael Gove talks to Laura Kuenssberg about why he backs an EU exit ]
But the justice secretary's comments were seized upon by Conservative MPs campaigning for the UK to leave the EU.
Human rights minister Dominic Raab said: "The last word on enforceability very clearly lies with the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg."
Speaking during the European Parliament session, UKIP leader Nigel Farage said lodging the document with the UN was "completely meaningless".
