EVIDENCE has already been offered to show that the little horn of this chapter is a symbol of Rome, both Pagan and Papal, and other points will be noticed in the course of the further examination of the prophecy; but before presenting them we will examine an expression which some regard as an objection to this application of the prophecy. The reader will understand that in the prophecy the third kingdom—Grecia—is represented by "a he goat," and that Alexander, the first king, is represented by the horn between the eyes of this goat. This horn was broken,—that is, Alexander died in the height of his power,—and the kingdom was divided; this division is represented by the four horns toward the four winds of heaven.
Referring to these horns, the prophecy continues: "And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land." Daniel 8:9. As before intimated, some profess to find in this an objection to calling the little horn Rome, for say they, How could Rome be said to come out of one of the divisions of the Grecian Empire? The answer, however, is easy: Grecia being, as we learn from both sacred and profane history, a universal empire, any power coming up at that time would of necessity come forth from some part of that empire. That Grecia was universal, and that even Rome acknowledged allegiance to it, is shown by the following extract from "Arnold’s History of Rome," chap. 30, paragraphs 1 and 2:—
"The Lucanians and Bruttians [inhabitants of Italy] are especially mentioned as having sent embassies to Alexander at Babylon." "The Tyrrhenians also," said Aristobulus and Ptolemæus, "sent an embassy to the king to congratulate him upon his conquests." "There is every reason to believe that among the Tyrrhenian ambassadors mentioned by Alexander’s historians, there were included ambassadors from Rome. . . . History may allow us to think that Alexander and a Roman ambassador did meet at Babylon; that the greatest man of the ancient world saw and spake with a citizen of that nation which was destined to succeed him in his appointed work, and to found a wider and still more enduring empire."
This extract would perhaps be sufficient on this point, but we desire to give still other reasons which show that it is eminently proper to speak of Rome as coming out of one of the divisions of Greece. These divisions were Macedon, Thrace, Syria, and Egypt, and, of course, if Rome came from any of these, it must have been from the first, as that was the most westerly division of Alexander’s empire. That this was the case is clearly shown by the following abridged quotation from Prideaux’s Connection, vol. 2, book 3, which we reprint with the accompanying comments from vol. 11 of this paper:—
In the year 168 B. c., Antiochus Epiphanes, then king of the Syrian division, determined to make himself master of Egypt, which was then governed by his nephew and niece, who were very young, and incapable of successful resistance. Says Prideaux:—
"This he most certainly would have accomplished, but that he met a Roman embassy in his way, which put a stop to his further progress, and totally dashed all the designs which he had been so long carrying on for the making of himself master of that country."—Connexion, vol. 2, book 3, An. 168, Ptol. Philometer 13.
The embassy was one which the Roman Senate had sent in response to the urgent request of the young Egyptian monarch for assistance against Antiochus. The reader will not fail to note that only three ambassadors, and not an army, were sent by the Romans to command Antiochus to desist from his intended war upon Egypt. These ambassadors met Antiochus when he was only four miles from Alexandria, on his way to besiege that city. The chief ambassador was Popillius, with whom Antiochus had been intimate while he was in Rome as a hostage. On seeing Popillius, Antiochus reached forth his hand to embrace him as an old friend. "But Popillius, refusing the compliment, told him that the public interest of his country must take the place of private friendship; that he must first know whether he were a friend or an enemy to the Roman State, before he could own him as a friend to himself; and then delivered into his hands the tables in which was written the decree of the Senate, which they came to communicate to him, and required him to read it and forthwith give him his answer thereto. Antiochus, having read the decree, told Popillius he would consult with his friends about it, and speedily give him the answer they should advise; but Popillius, insisting on an immediate answer, forthwith drew a circle round him [Antiochus] in the sand with the staff which he had in his hand, and required him to give his answer before he stirred out of that circle; at which strange and peremptory way of proceeding, Antiochus, being startled, after a little hesitation, yielded to it, and told the ambassador that he would obey the command of the Senate; whereupon Popillius, accepting his embraces, acted thenceforth according to his former friendship with him."
But the point of all this is found in the next two sentences of Prideaux. Says he: "That which made him [i. e. Popillius] so bold as to act with him after this peremptory manner, and the other so tame as to yield thus patiently to it, was the news which they had a little before received of the great victory of the Romans, which they had gotten over Perseus, king of Macedonia. For Paulus Æmilius, having now vanquished that king, and thereby added Macedonia to the Roman Empire, the name of the Romans after this carried that weight with it as carried a terror in all the neighboring nations; so that none of them after this cared to dispute their commands, but were glad on any terms to maintain peace, and cultivate a friendship with them."
Now since it was the conquest of Macedon that gave Rome its prestige among the nations, and made it virtually a universal empire, having the power to dictate to other kingdoms, and to stop their projects by a single word, it is evidently very proper to speak of it as "coming out" of one of the horns of the goat, viz., the Macedonian horn. The historian, in describing the rise of the Roman Empire, could not well employ a more fitting expression than that used by the prophet 370 years before the occurrence. The foregoing quotation shows the immense superiority of the Romans over Antiochus Epiphanes, and thus of itself effectually demolishes the theory held by some, that that pusillanimous king was the "exceeding great" power represented by the little horn.
This makes the evidence on this point absolutely conclusive, and the reader is of course prepared to agree with us when we say that instead of the words, "Out of one of these," etc., being an objection to the application of the prophecy to Rome, they are an additional reason why it should be so applied. The consideration of other points of identity of the little-horn power with Rome, will be considered next week.