THOUGHTS ON THE BOOK OF DANIEL.
CHAPTER II, VERSE 42 (CONTINUED).
As the view is presented that the ten toes of the image denote the ten kingdoms that arose out of the Roman empire, we are sometimes met with the objection that Rome, before its division into ten kingdoms, was divided into two parts, the Western and Eastern Empires, corresponding to the two legs of the image; and as the ten kingdoms all arose out of the western division, if they are denoted by the toes, we should have ten toes on one foot of the image, and none on the other; which would be unnatural and inconsistent. The fallacy which forms the basis of this objection, is the view that the two legs of the image signify the separation of the Roman Empire into its eastern and western divisions. To this view there are several objections. 1. Rome, from the very beginning of its history, was represented by the two legs; and if these denote division, it should have been divided at the very commencement of its career. This claim is sustained by the other symbols. Thus the division, or the two elements, of the Persian kingdom denoted by the horns of the ram, the elevation of the bear upon one side, and perhaps the two arms of the image, existed from the first. The division of the Grecian kingdom, denoted by the four horns of the goat, and the four heads of the leopard, dates back to within eight years of the time of its introduction into prophecy. So Rome should have been divided from the first, if the legs denote division, instead of remaining a unit for nearly six hundred years, and separating into its eastern and western divisions only a few years prior to its final disruption into ten kingdoms. 2. No such division into two great parts was denoted by the other symbols under which Rome is represented in the book of Daniel; namely the great and terrible beast of Daniel vii, and the little horn of chap. viii. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that it was not the design of the image to represent such a division. 3. Each of the four monarchies had its own particular territory, which was the kingdom proper, and where we are to look for the chief events in its history, shadowed forth by the symbol. We are not therefore to look for the divisions of the Roman Empire in the territory formerly occupied by Babylon, or Persia, or Grecia, but in the territory proper of the Roman kingdom, which was what was finally known as the Western Empire. Rome conquered the world; but the kingdom of Rome proper, lay west of Grecia. That is what was represented by the legs of iron. There, then, we look for the ten kingdoms; and there we find them. We are not obliged to mutilate or deform the symbol to make it a fit and accurate representation of historical events. VERSE. 43. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men; but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. With Rome, fell the last of earth's universal empires. Heretofore the elements of society had been such that it had been possible for one nation, riding superior to its neighbors in prowess, bravery, and the science of war, to attach one after another to its chariot wheels till all were consolidated into one vast empire, and one man seated upon the dominant throne could send forth his will as law to all the nations of the earth. When Rome fell, such possibilities forever passed away. Crushed beneath the weight of its own vast proportions, it crumbled to pieces, never to be united again. The iron was mixed with the clay. Its elements have lost the power of cohesion, and no man, nor combination of men, can again consolidate them. This point is so well set forth by another that we can do no better than to quote his words: “From this, its divided state, the first strength of the empire departed—but not as that of the others had done. No other kingdom was to succeed it, as it had the three which went before it. It was to continue, in this tenfold division, until the kingdom of stone smote it, upon its feet, broke them in pieces, and scattered them as the wind does chaff of the summer threshing-floor! Yet, through all this time, a portion of its strength was to remain. And so the prophet says, ‘And as the toes of the feet were part of iron and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly broken.’ (v. 42.) How in any other way could you so strikingly represent the facts? For more than fourteen hundred years this tenfold division has existed. Time and again men have dreamed of rearing on these dominions one mighty kingdom. Charlemagne tried it. Charles V tried it. Louis XIV tried it. Napoleon tried it. But neither succeeded. A single verse of prophecy was stronger than all their hosts. Their own power was wasted, fettered away, destroyed. But the ten kingdoms did not become one. ‘Partly strong and partly broken’ was the prophetic description. And such, too, has been the historic fact concerning them. With the book of history open before you, I ask you, Is not this an exact representation of the remnants of this once mighty empire? It ruled with unlimited power. It was the throned mistress of the world. Its sceptre was broken; its throne pulled down: its power taken away. Ten kingdoms were formed out of it; and ‘broken’ as then it was, it still continues—i. e., ‘partly broken.’ For its dimensions still continue as when the kingdom of iron stood upright upon its feet. And then, it is ‘partly strong’—i. e., it retains even in its broken state, enough of its iron strength to resist all attempts to mould its parts together. ‘This shall not be,’ says the word of God. ‘This has not been,’ replies the book of history. “But then, men may say, ‘Another plan remains. If force cannot avail, diplomacy and reasons of State may—we will try them.’ And so the prophecy foreshadows this when it says, ‘They shall mingle themselves with the seed of men’—i. e., marriages shall be formed, in hope thus to consolidate their power, and, in the end, to unite these divided kingdoms into one. “And shall this device succeed? No. The prophet answers; ‘They shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.’ And the history of Europe is but a running commentary on the exact fulfillment of these words. From the time of Canute to the present age, it has been the policy of reigning monarchs, the beaten path which they have trodden, in order to reach a mightier sceptre, and a wider sway. And the most signal instances of it, which history has recorded in our own day, is in the case of Napoleon. He ruled in one of the kingdoms; Austria was another. He sought to reach by alliance what he could not gain by force, i. e., to build up one mighty, consolidated empire. And did he succeed? Nay. The very power with which he was allied proved his destruction, in the troops of Blucher on the field of Waterloo! The iron would not mingle with clay. The ten kingdoms continue still. “And yet if, as the result of these alliances, or of other causes, that number is sometimes disturbed, it need not surprise us. It is, indeed, just what the prophecy seems to call for. The iron was ‘mixed with the clay.’ For a season, in the image, you might not distinguish between them. But they would not remain so. ‘They shall not cleave one to another.’ The nature of the substances forbid them to do so in the one case; the word of prophecy in the other. Yet there was to be an attempt to mingle—nay, more, there was an approach to mingling in both cases. But it was to be abortive. And how marked the emphasis with which history affirms this declaration of the word of God?” Yet with all these facts before them, with all these plain declarations on the sacred page, asserting their power through the overturns and changes of centuries, the efforts of warriors, and the diplomacy and intrigues of courts and kings, some modern expositors have manifested such a marvelous misapprehension of this prophecy, as to predict a future universal kingdom, and point to a European ruler, even now of waning years, and declining prestige, as “the destined monarch of the world!” Vain is the breath they spend in promulgating such a theory, and delusive the hopes or fears they may succeed in raising over such an expectation.