G. H. Wallace, in Advent Christian Messenger. “AND at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.” Dan. 11:40. The Turk rules the territory of the northern division of the Alexandrian empire. The territory identifies the power in this case. Egypt rules the territory known as the south, or the southern division of that empire, and has from the beginning, with the capital at Alexandria. The Syrian capital of the northern division was at St. Jean d’Acre, later at Constantinople. Now the king, or power of the north, so many times mentioned in this chapter, is mentioned in this verse 40; so also is the king of the south. But the question we have been asked to answer is, What is the power referred to as him in this verse, against which the king of the south—Egypt—pushes, and against which the king of the north—Turkey—comes like a whirlwind? This third power is introduced in verse 36 as the willful king. The indefinite article is used by some very good authorities, who read this verse as follows: “And a king shall do according to his will,” etc. It will be observed that this willful king, or power, makes his appearance at the time of the end, being therefore neither papal nor Mohammedan, but being atheistical at first, and idolatrous later. See verses 37, 38. Finding these three powers complicated in this verse, we look into history that has been made since the waning of papal supremacy, and since the beginning of the sign period known in the prophecy as the time of the end, and marked definitely by the darkening of the sun May 19, 1780, for an invasion of Egypt by a strong power, which is met by a mere push of feeble resistance, and against whom Turkey goes forth to war like a whirlwind force, and is victorious. Now here is the historical finding. Napoleon Bonaparte fondly cherished the dream of universal empire, with his beloved France as the center, and himself as the head. He predicted the Suez canal, and calculated that if a strong power like France could control that territory, a highway by a short route could be opened up to the wealth of India. That route has been opened up by the Suez canal, but not for the control of France. The distance is said to have been shortened to 4,888 miles to Bombay from London or Hamburg. Napoleon pondered long and well, before venturing upon the risks of that invasion of Egypt in 1798-99. He saw himself monarch of a fifth universal empire. At length he sailed for Egypt with forty thousand troops and a large fleet, and a plan of campaign so well matured that it has been the marvel of history that in the hands of such a man as Napoleon Bonaparte it had not succeeded. But God had said only four earthly, carnal, universal governments; the fifth is to be heavenly, and ruled by the Lord Jesus Christ. “The word of the Lord can not be broken.” On July 21, 1798, the famous battle of the pyramids was fought. The French, though greatly outnumbered, lost but about two hundred, while the Egyptians lost thousands. The resistance was a mere push at him. This battle was decisive, the courage of Egypt was gone. Napoleon was filled with joy. He left a sufficient force in Egypt to finish the war, and with the bulk of his army he invaded Syria, the territory of the Turk. His plan as given to the world by his private secretary after Napoleon’s imprisonment was this: To overturn the sultan’s power in Syria, and liberate and arm his misruled malcontents, especially the Armenians, who, as he rightly said, were praying for his coming. This invasion was made in the spring of 1799, and siege was laid to St. Jean d’Acre, the ancient capital of Syria, and the gateway to the sultan’s Asiatic possessions. He fully appreciated the importance of that fortification. As he approached the little city, he pointed toward it, and said to Murat, who rode at his side, “The fate of the East depends upon you petty town.” The siege of Acre in bravery and blood beggars description. England had correctly divined the plan of Napoleon, had landed a strong force in Egypt, and had sent a powerful fleet to Acre. Supposing that the plans of his chief had materialized, the captain in charge of a large flotilla of munitions of war went to Acre, as directed, and fell into the hands of Sir Sidney Smith, who commanded the British fleet. This enabled the city to hold out to Napoleon’s ruin. “But for the mistake of a captain,” said Napoleon in after time, “Acre would have fallen. I would have flown to Damascus and Aleppo. In the twinkling of an eye I would have been at the Euphrates. I would have reached Constantinople and the Indies, and would have changed the face of the world.” Splendid as his situation afterward became with the French, he never ceased to regret the throne relinquished by him when he sounded the retreat from Acre. And he often said of Sir Sidney Smith, “That man made me miss my destiny.” England, seeing that her Indian interests were endangered by this invasion of Egypt and Syria, and Russia, seeing the Bosphorus in danger of falling into the hands of France, came to the assistance of Turkey in an overwhelming force by land and sea. Thus strengthened, the king of the north (Turkey) came against him (France) like a whirlwind, with chariots (artillery carriages), with horsemen (Turkish cavalry), and with many ships (British navy), and he, the king of the north (Turkey), shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and307pass over. He swept everything before him. This affiliation of natural enemies seems quite wonderful. For a sample of the fighting in that war we call attention to the naval engagement in the bay of Abukir, known as the battle of the Nile, Aug. 1, 1798. The respective fleets were commanded by Admirals Brueys and Nelson. There were 19,298 men engaged, with 2,217 guns. The French loss is recorded, according to Allison, as 5,325 men killed, while the loss to the British was 898 killed. On March 8, 1801, the famous battle of Alexandria was fought between Sir Ralph Abercromby and General Menu. Mr. Allison says of this battle that “it decided the fate of the civilized world.” Vol. II., page 176. A misapprehension that England was the king of the north in that war [and], consequently the power that must fulfill the closing verses of Daniel 11, is positively corrected by consulting Allison’s “History of Europe,” Vol. II., page 176, where we read of the celebration of victory as follows:— The cannon of the seraglio were fired, the city of Constantinople was splendidly illuminated, medals were struck, to be distributed among the English, who had served in Egypt, and a palace was built for the British ambassador at Pera, as a lasting monument of the gratitude of the Ottoman Empire.
Who, then, was the principal in that whirlwind war?—The king of the north, Turkey. What was England’s part in the war?—An ally, as shown by the fact that her soldiers were rewarded with medals by the principal, the Ottoman Empire. This seems sufficient to show that there are three powers brought to view in Dan. 11:40, and also to identify them as, (1) the king or power of the south, Egypt; (2) the king or power of the north, Turkey; (3) the invading aggressor, France. To this agrees the history. These facts leave the old position intact that the Ottoman Empire, and not Great Britain, nor Russia, nor any other power, is the one described as coming to his end in the closing events of earth’s bloody drama, and in close connection with the deliverance of God’s people by the standing up of Michael, and the resurrection. These are interesting times for faithful watchmen, but perilous times for mere nominal Christianity.