may be that this is the only dominion God can give, even as He gave some such

dominion to Adam and Noah.  But will anyone have the temerity to assert that

Nebuchadnezzar actually ruled 'wheresoever the children of men dwell?'  Were

there no men dwelling in Europe, or in China at that time?  What becomes then

of the objection that Rome never conquered the whole world?  Again, will it

be seriously maintained that Nebuchadnezzar ever exercised the dominion given

him over the beast of the field or the fowl of the air?  The selfsame

argument that sets aside Rome, equally sets aside the three preceding

kingdoms and so is manifestly absurd.  Moreover, the prophet actually

declared that there would be a deterioration in these successive kingdoms,

saying, 'After thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee'.

We have already pointed out that the word translated 'inferior' is the

Chaldee ara which is elsewhere always translated 'earth' and is so translated

in the selfsame verse that contains the word 'inferior' (Dan. 2:39).

Inferiority therefore does not rule out succession.  The adoption of this

word ara suggests an earthward degeneration, and so we see gold followed by

silver, silver by brass, brass by iron, iron by clay, but never any

suggestion that succession was not maintained.  The removal of Rome from the

image destroys the prophecy of Daniel 9, for that prophecy speaks of an

unbroken period of time which extended from the days of Nehemiah up to the

death of the Messiah, and consequently Alexander's Empire must have had a

successor, otherwise the times of the Gentiles would be running on without a

head.  A break does come in these prophetic times, as all know, but that was

long after the accession of Rome to power.  Let us open the New Testament and

inquire from its pages whether there was at the time of Christ a world power,

and if so what was its name.

'And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from

Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed (or enrolled)'

(Luke 2:1).

This decree was law in Palestine, for as we all know it compelled

Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem because they were of the house and

lineage of David.  Surely, it must mean that the reader is already

prejudiced, if he does not see in this verse several unquestionable claims to

World power.

Caesar Augustus.-- The title Caesar is allied with Kaiser and

Czar or Tzar, all of which, if not actually derived from, closely

resemble the Hebrew word sar, translated 'prince' (Dan. 8:11,25).  Its

use in the New Testament leaves us without doubt that he who held this

title ruled the world, at least so far as an inhabitant of Palestine

was concerned.  There are eighteen references to Caesar in the Gospels,

eleven in the Acts and one in the epistles.  The first occurrence of

this title is in the question:

'Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?'

Before answering this question the Saviour requested that He be shown

the tribute money.  He was shown 'a penny' He then enquired:

'Whose is this image and superscription?  They say unto Him,

Caesar's;' and then came the well -known reply, 'Render therefore unto