p. 676 | The Roman Empire by Alonzo T. Jones

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Nov 12, 1885

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 43.

The Roman Empire.

By Alonzo T. Jones

(Continued.)

THE ROMAN PROVINCES.

Although the “iron monarchy of Rome,” in the greatness of its strength, broke in pieces all kingdoms, yet the time was to come when it itself should be broken. At the same time that Daniel spoke of the fourth kingdom breaking in pieces and bruising all, he also said:—

“And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potter’s clay and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. 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.” Dan. 2: 41, 42.

We must now inquire, Of what should this division consist? Into how many parts should Rome be divided? We think there can be but one answer possible. Because, as it is the “feet and toes,” and particularly the “toes,” of the image that are spoken of in connection with the division, it is certain that that division is shown by the toes of the image; and as this was the image of a man, there were certainly ten toes. Therefore the only reasonable or possible conclusion is that Rome should be divided into ten parts. However, we are not left to draw our own conclusions, logical and necessary though they be. In the seventh chapter of Daniel, this same series of kingdoms is gone over again under the symbols of “four great beasts,” the fourth one of which was declared by the angel to be the fourth kingdom, which shows it to be identical with the iron—the fourth kingdom—of the great image. This fourth beast had also ten horns, which exactly correspond to the ten toes of the image. Further, the angel said plainly of these ten horns that they were ten kings that should arise (Dan. 7: 24), which proves to a demonstration that the toes of the image are spoken of in connection with the division, with direct reference to the number of parts into which Rome should be divided. Therefore we know that ten kingdoms were to arise upon the ruins of the Roman power.

Now we may ask, Where should these ten kingdoms arise? In other words, Are there any clearly defined limits within which the ten kingdoms should establish themselves? We believe there are. And that we may make the subject as plain and as easily understood as possible, we shall now define those limits.

From the ascension of Nebuchadnezzar to the end of the world, these four kingdoms are the only ones that should ever bear universal sway. And each of these in its turn occupied territory peculiar to itself, from which it spread its power over the others. Although the four kingdoms were successive, and although each one in succession spread its power over all the territory of those that had preceded it, yet each one retained its own peculiar distinction from all the others. And this distinction is kept up throughout the book of Daniel, and is even recognized in the book of Revelation, which was written in the time of the supremacy of the fourth kingdom, in a prophecy that was not to be fulfilled till after the establishment of the ten kingdoms.

The fact of the matter is, these are not only the four universal empires, but they also represent the four divisions of the then known civilized world, each one of which occupies territory peculiar to itself, and is never confounded with any of the others. Thus, Babylonia was first, and when it was overturned it was by the united power of Media and Persia, which occupied entirely distinct territory from that of Babylonia proper. Then when the Medo-Persian power was destroyed, it was by the power of Grecia, which arose from a territory entirely distinct from that of either Babylon or Medo-Persia. So, likewise, when the Grecian ascendancy was destroyed it was by a power that arose still further to the west, entirely beyond the territory of Grecia, in a territory entirely its own, and distinct from all the others. This is all expressed in a single verse in the seventh chapter of Daniel. After the description of the four great beasts which represent these four kingdoms, he says of the fourth beast, that he beheld till he was slain and his body destroyed and given to the burning flame; then he says of the others:—

“As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away; yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.” (Margin, Chaldee, “A prolonging in life was given them.”) Dan. 7: 12.

This passage, with the point which we here make, is aptly and well illustrated by a passage from Rawlinson. Speaking of the Babylonian monarchy, he says:—

“Even when this monarchy met its death at the hands of Cyrus the Great, the nationality of the Chaldeans was not swept away. We find them recognized under the Persians, and even under the Parthians, as a distinct people.”—Seven Great Monarchies, First Mon., chap. 8, last par.

Thus it was with each and with all,—the dominion was taken away, but the nationality remained; the ruling power was transferred, but the national life continued. It follows, therefore, that, as it was Rome that was to be divided, the division must pertain to the territory that was peculiar to the fourth kingdom, and which had not belonged to any of the three that preceded it. Where was that? We can easily learn. (1) Media and Persia occupied the territory east of the Tigris and the Persian Gulf; (2) Babylonia, the territory from the Tigris to the Arabian Desert; (3) Grecia, from the Hellespont to and even beyond the Danube, and to the Adriatic Sea, northward to about the forty-fifth parallel of latitude; (4) The territory of Rome proper occupied all the rest west of the Danube and the Rhine to the Atlantic and the Frith of Forth, and all of the northern coast of Africa, to nearly as far east as the twentieth degree of longitude.

Within the boundaries thus marked lay the territory of Rome proper. It was this territory that was peculiar to the fourth kingdom. And it is within the limits drawn under “(4)” above that we are to look for the ten divisions of the fourth kingdom and the establishment of the ten kingdoms.

We propose to trace the history of these ten kingdoms from their tribal relations as savages in the dismal forests of Germany, through their devastating incursions into the rich and civilized provinces of Rome, and down to their own establishment within these provinces, and their development into civilized and influential kingdoms there. Rome, once so powerful, once so great, now, through luxury and indulgence, grown corrupt, effeminate, and weak, we shall see waste away and perish. We shall see the movements of the nations coming in to fill up with a new and vigorous people the place that Rome was no longer worthy to fill.

Before we begin this history, it will be best, and in fact really necessary to a proper understanding of the subject, that we briefly sketch the boundaries of the provinces of the Roman Empire, both of Rome proper, and as far east as the Hellespont and the Black Sea. This task, however, has been so admirably performed by Gibbon that all that we shall need to do will be to quote his words. He says:—

“We have attempted to explain the spirit which moderated, and the strength which supported, the power of Hadrian and the Antonines. We shall now endeavor, with clearness and precision, to describe the provinces once united under their sway, but at present divided into so many independent and hostile States. “Spain, the western extremity of the empire, of Europe, and of the ancient world, has in every age invariably preserved the same natural limits,—the Pyrenees Mountains, the Mediterranean, and the Atlantic Ocean. That great peninsula, at present so unequally divided between two sovereigns, was distributed by Augustus into three provinces,—Lusitania, Bætica, and Tarraconensis. The kingdom of Portugal now fills the place of the warlike country of the Lusitanians; and the loss sustained by the former on the side of the east, is compensated by an accession of territory towards the north. The confines of Grenada and Andalusia correspond with those of ancient Bætica. The remainder of Spain,—Galicia, and the Asturias, Biscay and Navarre, Leon and the two Castiles, Murcia, Valencia, Catalonia, and Arragon,—all contributed to form the third and most considerable of the Roman governments, which, from the name of its capital, was styled the province of Tarragona.”

“Ancient Gaul, as it contained the whole country between the Pyrenees, the Alps, the Rhine, and the Ocean, was of greater extent than modern France. To the dominions of that powerful monarchy [a republic now], with its recent acquisitions of Alsace and Lorraine [lost again in 1870], we must add the duchy of Savoy, the cantons of Switzerland, the four electorates of the Rhine, and the territories of Liege, Luxemburg, Hainault, Flanders, and Brabant. . . . The sea-coast of the Mediterranean, Languedoc, Provence, and Dauphine, received their provincial appellation from the colony of Narbonne. The government of Aquitaine was extended from the Pyrenees to the Loire. The country between the Loire and the Seine was styled the Celtic Gaul, and soon borrowed a new denomination from the celebrated colony of Lugdunum, or Lyons. The Belgic lay beyond the Seine, and in more ancient times had been bounded only by the Rhine; but a little before the age of Cæsar, the Germans, abusing their superiority of valor, had occupied a considerable portion of the Belgic territory. The Roman conquerors very eagerly embraced so flattering a circumstance, and the Gallic frontier of the Rhine, from Basel to Leyden, received the pompous names of the Upper and the Lower Germany. Such, under the reign of the Antonines, were the six provinces of Gaul,—the Narbonnese, Aquitaine, the Celtic, or Lyonnese, the Belgic, and the two Germanies.

“We have already had occasion to mention the conquest of Britain, and to fix the boundary of the Roman province in this island. It comprehended all England, Wales, and the Lowlands of Scotland as far as the Friths of the Clyde and the Forth.”—Dec. and Fall, chap. 1, par. 23–26. A. T. J.

(To be continued.)