Antebellum: Upon the Seven Hills

The first work quoted below is from a work by the late Rev James Aitken Wylie (1808-90) – the author of the 1848 work, The Seventh Vial, that was the main text of my second posting on this blog on 1 September 2009.

And the second authority (after a brief introduction from another source) is the nineteenth century Anglican Bishop of Lincoln, Christopher Wordsworth, D.D. (1807-85); the nephew of the poet 'Wordsworth', who (in the conclusion of the work sourced) remarks of the coming, “final struggle of Christianity against open Infidelity”.

First from Wylie's work:

'Societies, not less than individuals, reap as they have sowed; and in the convulsions and revolutions of our times, Rome is reaping the fruit of ages of superstition and despotism. The Papacy at this moment is fighting its third great battle. Its first was with the empire; in that it was victorious. Its second was with Christianity, in the persons of its Albigensian and Waldensian confessors; and in that, too, it was victorious. Its third great war is that which it is now waging with an ATHEISTIC COMMUNISM, which has risen contemporaneously, and with extraordinary intensity and power, in all the Catholic countries of Europe. Whence has come this new and destructive principle? It is the natural issue of the bondage in which the human mind has so long been retained,—of the violence done to reason and faith,—for superstition is the parent of atheism. The national mind in France long struggled to find vent through means of Christianity. This was denied it. It next sought liberty in scepticism, which speedily terminated in atheism. With French infidelity came French democracy. We have already said that the democratic element entered the world with Christianity, and revived again in the Reformation of John Calvin. There is this difference, however, that whereas the doctrine of Calvin would have given true liberty,—constitutional government,—to Europe, the doctrine of Voltaire gave it an anarchy which baptized itself in blood. Scepticism, engendered thus from superstition, has overspread Europe, and set free the masses from all divine control, and, by necessary consequence, from all earthly authority. The brood of revolutions which now torments Europe is the progeny of Rome. From her own loins has sprung the hydra that threatens to tear her in pieces. The sorceress of the Seven Hills, like the Hag of Pandemonium, is now

“With terrors and with clamours compass’d round Of mine own brood, that on my bowels feed.”'

(Taken from: The Papacy: its History, Dogmas, Genius, and Prospects, by Rev James A Wylie, LL.D, 1851).

Before moving on to quote from Bishop Wordsworth's work – I'll first give the following brief quote – by means of introduction to it:

'In common with most of the learned Divines of the Church of England since the Reformation and – as we have seen – in accordance with the teaching of her Homilies, we object to Reunion with the Papacy because the Church of Rome is the Babylon of the Revelation. This has been clearly and conclusively proved in that brief, able, unanswered, and unanswerable treatise of the late Bishop Christopher Wordsworth, of Lincoln, entitled :– Union with Rome: Is not the Church of Rome the Babylon of the Apocalypse? I cannot too urgently press upon my readers the great advantage of reading this shilling book. It was not written by an Evangelical Churchman, but by one of the old-fashioned High Church School, one whose great learning is acknowledged by all scholars.'

(Walter Walsh writing in, The Secret History of the Oxford Movement, Third Edition; London: Swan Sonenschein & Co., Ltd., Paternoster Square, E.C., 1898).

To begin – first the title-page to Bishop Wordsworth's above mentioned work:

UNION WITH ROME.

“IS NOT THE CHURCH OF ROME THE

BABYLON OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION?”

An Essay,

BY

CHR. WORDSWORTH, D.D.

LATE BISHOP OF LINCOLN.

TENTH EDITION.

RIVINGTONS,

WATERLOO PLACE, LONDON.

MDCCCXXXVIII.

[Sic MDCCCLXXXVIII (1888)]

And now to the work proper:

'[T]he marvel predicted by the Apocalypse is this and a stupendous mystery it is that some of the Powers of the Earth, which received strength with the Beast, and at one time gave up their might to it, would, under the overruling sway of God's retributive justice, arise against the Woman seated on the Beast, and “tear her flesh,” and burn her with fire. And, what is still more marvellous, they will do this, although, in the first instance, they have been leagued with the Beast and with the False Prophet, or False Teacher, who is the Ally of the Beast, on whom the Woman sits as a Queen, in opposition to Christ: and it is foretold, that they will punish Rome in a mysterious transport of indignation, and in a wild ecstasy of revenge.

'Such is the prophecy of St John. And let us ask the candid reader, Is not this prophecy even now in course of fulfilment, in the eyes of the World?

'Of all the princely houses of Europe that were once devoted to the Roman Papacy, none was a more abject vassal of it, than the house of Savoy. In the seventeenth century, AD 1655, it executed with ruthless obsequiousness the sanguinary mandates of Rome, exhorting it to exterminate the Vaudois – the Protestant communities of the Alps – with fire and sword. Such was its eagerness in the work of destruction, that Oliver Cromwell wrote a letter of expostulation to the Duke of Savoy, and sent an ambassador from England to deprecate this crusade of desolation; and Milton then wrote his famous sonnet, which has proved almost prophetic, “On the late Massacre in Piedmont,”

“Avenge, O Lord, Thy slaughter'd saints, whose bones Lie scatter'd on the Alpine mountains cold.”

'And what is now the case, at the present time?

'A Prince of that same house, the house of Savoy, has now been raised up to the Throne of Italy, Victor Emmanuel; and he has “torn the flesh” of Rome, he has despoiled her of the greater part of her temporal dominions; France (which is now virtually mistress of Rome), Spain, and Portugal, have recognized him as King of Italy; he has suppressed her Monasteries, and has thus deprived Rome of her most powerful spiritual Army; and it is not improbable, that either his dynasty, or that of some other secular Potentates formerly devoted to the Papacy, may be employed as an instrument for inflicting more chastisements on Papal Rome.' (pp. 29-30).

And again, later in the same work, from its:

POSTSCRIPT

ON SOME PASSING EVENTS, CONSIDERED WITH REFEEENCE TO PROPHECIES IN THE APOCALYPSE.

' . . . It was there foretold, that the mystical Babylon would be punished for her sins. It was also prophesied there that (as the literal Babylon was punished by the Medes and Persians, who were formerly subject to her, and who rose up against her, and took the city, according to Daniel's interpretation of the handwriting on the wall), so likewise the mystical Babylon would be chastised by God, using the agency of some who had once been her allies and tributaries. It was predicted that some of them would revolt from her, and “hate her, and make her desolate and naked, and tear her flesh;” in other words, that they would despoil her of her Temporal Power, and would ravage her dominions, and take from her that carnal Sovereignty in which she trusted.

'And what is now the fact?

'The House of Savoy, which was once the most devoted vassal of the Papacy, and which exercised its power in obedience to the Papacy in the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries in successive sanguinary persecutions of its own Protestant subjects, the Waldenses, whom it almost exterminated at her bidding, has been raised up by Almighty God against the Papacy in the person of Victor Emmanuel, a Prince of that house, and now King of Italy.

'Not by conquests of his own, but by the inscrutable Providence of God, overruling the events of War for his exaltation and aggrandizement, and for the humiliation and overthrow of the Temporal Power of the Papacy, Victor Emmanuel has now become Sovereign of Rome and of all the Papal States.

'It is also a remarkable coincidence, that the promulgation of the dogma of the personal Infallibility of the Papacy by the present Pope, in the Council which commenced its sessions on the Festival of the Immaculate Conception, was followed on the next day after that promulgation (July 19, 1870) by the declaration of War on the part of France against Prussia; which has led to the sudden humiliation of France, the protectress of Rome, and to the withdrawal of the French troops from Rome, and to the opening of the gates of Rome to the forces of Victor Emmanuel.

'It is also worthy of notice that in the same year, 1870, on the very next day after the Anniversary of the Festival of the Immaculate Conception on which (in 1854) the novel dogma of the Immaculate Conception was promulgated, and on which (in 1869) the Vatican Council met, which has decreed the Pope's Infallibility, a public document and Manifesto was laid before the Italian Parliament, in which the Government of the King of Italy announced a royal decree, accepting the City and provinces of Rome, transferred to the King by a “plebiscito” of the Roman people themselves, and in which it is declared that the Pope's Temporal Power is extinct, and that Rome is no longer to be the Metropolis of the Roman Papacy, but is henceforth to become, in lieu of Florence, the Capital of the Kingdom of Italy.

'These coincidences were undesigned; the principal actors in them thought nothing of the Apocalypse. But they who have that divine book in their hands, and who remember Christ's command to “discern the signs of the times,” and who consider the blessing which is promised to those who read and meditate upon the Apocalypse, will mark these facts, and will observe these coincidences, and will enquire with reverence, whether the prophecies of the Book of Revelation are not now receiving their accomplishment in Italy and at Rome.

'It was foretold, in these prophecies, as has been already noticed, that some who have been tributaries and vassals of the mystical Babylon, will “tear her flesh, and make her desolate and naked, and burn her with fire.” That prophecy has a spiritual meaning. The mystical Babylon is compared to a faithless woman, and her chastisement is likened to that which was inflicted on Hebrew women for harlotry. They who were once her votaries will tear the flesh of her who once enchanted them with her charms. It is added that they will “burn her with fire;” this is also a figurative phrase; and its meaning is that, as, among the Hebrews, unchaste women were burnt, so the mystical Babylon will be punished, and her glory will be consumed for her sins, as with fire.

'I do not venture to express a confident opinion, whether the present occupation of Rome by the arms of Victor Emmanuel, and the destruction of the Temporal Power of the Papacy by the People of Italy, including the Romans themselves, and by the Sovereign of Italy at the invitation of the Romans themselves, is a fulfilment of this prophecy; but it seems to be an approach towards it. Time will show. The capture of the literal Babylon by Cyrus was not the total destruction of Babylon, it was the transfer of its sovereignty from the Babylonians to the Medes and Persians.' (pp. 97-99).

'We are no advocates of aggression, or apologists of spoliation, but we cannot fail to remark, that it is written in the Apocalypse concerning the mystical Babylon, “Her sins have reached unto heaven” (did they not reach to heaven when the Pope proclaimed himself to be Infallible? did they not then come to a head? And is it surprising that the cup of God's wrath should now overflow upon her?), “and God hath remembered her iniquities; reward her, even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.” And we cannot but observe the evidence which is now displayed to the world, that God is a righteous Judge, that He is the moral Governor of the world, and Arbiter of the destinies of nations, and that, after long forbearance, He punishes Churches and Empires in a manner proportioned to their sins; and that the prophecies of the Apocalypse are true.

'There are other portions of this prophecy which now claim careful attention.

'The Apocalypse predicts that the spiritual dominion of the Papacy will survive the fall of the temporal power of Rome.

'In that Book the mystical Babylon falls, but that spiritual Empire, which is personified as the Beast (a term derived from Daniel's prophecy) on which she sits, is described as remaining after her fall. The fall of the Pope's temporal power will not be the extinction of the Papacy. On the contrary, it is very probable, that the fall of the temporal power of the Papacy will add fresh strength and confidence to its spiritual domination.' (pp. 100-101).

'There is another prophecy in the Book of Revelation which is a fit subject for solemn meditation at the present time.

'It seems to foretell, that after the destruction of its temporal sway, the Papacy will act, if not in alliance with some Infidel powers, yet concurrently with them...

[As detailed in his earlier work: Lectures on the Apocalypse; Critical, Expository, and Practical; delivered before the University of Cambridge; by Chr. Wordsworth D.D. (then) Canon of Westminster; published by Francis & John Rivington, London, 1852]

' . . . [T]hen [after this] the final struggle of Christianity against open Infidelity will ensue; and then, after that great conflict, the Victory of Christ will be complete, and the General Resurrection and Universal Judgment of quick and dead will take place, and His faithful soldiers and servants will be received into the everlasting glory of His heavenly kingdom. Then will be the consummation of all things which is revealed in the last chapters of the Apocalypse. . . . “The Spirit and the Bride say, Come . . . . . Amen, so come, Lord Jesus.”' (pp. 104-105).

“Marx & Satan”

There is little doubt in my mind – that with the outbreak of the Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917 – the same lying spirit that was let loose in the Revolutionary Terror that engulfed France at the close of the eighteenth century, was re-energised, and again erupted upon the war-weary world during the opening decades of the twentieth century – but this time in an explosion of a far greater-reaching and destructive magnitude . . .

The American journalist, and socialist, John Reed appropriately titled his first-hand account of the events of that epoch-shaking event, as Ten Days that Shook the World (1919).

(“And there was a great earthquake [revolution], such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.” Revelation 16:18).

The late Rev Richard Wurmbrand* in his book, Marx & Satan, shined the light of Truth into the spiritual darkness that lay within the hearts of the writers of The Communist Manifesto. Perversely it would be in Russia, amongst the people Marx describes as being “Slavic riffraff”, and a “retrograde” race, that his twisted ideology first fully blossomed and took hold – viz the following from Wurmbrand's above cited work:

“Marx wrote in his new year's roundup of 1848 about 'the Slavic riffraff,' which included [the] Russians [and their kindred peoples] . . . [He wrote that, what he termed] these 'retrograde' races had nothing left for them by fate except 'the immediate task of perishing in the revolutionary world storm.' [Marx also wrote that:] 'The coming world war will cause not only reactionary classes and dynasties, but entire reactionary peoples, to disappear from the face of the earth. And that will be progress.'”

Wurmbrand continues: “Neither Marx nor Engels were concerned about the destruction of millions of people. The former wrote, 'A silent, unavoidable revolution is taking place in society, a revolution that cares as little about the human lives it destroys as an earthquake cares about the houses it ravages. Classes and races that are too weak to dominate the new conditions of existence will be defeated.' ...

“Engels wrote in the same vein:

'The next world war will make whole reactionary peoples disappear from the face of the earth. This, too, is progress. Obviously this cannot be fulfilled without crushing some delicate national flower. But without violence and without pitilessness nothing can be obtained in history.'”

In the Revelation, chapter 16; verses 13-14, (which follows directly after the act of the sixth angel pouring out his vial upon the symbolic Euphrates – which according to Sir Isaac Newton, et al – represents the drying up and decaying Ottoman Empire): it speaks of, “three unclean spirits like frogs . . . [coming] out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of devils . . . which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.”

There is no doubt in my mind, that Marx and his ideology, were a vast mouthpiece for the “unclean” spirit out of the mouth of the “dragon” (“that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world...” Revelation 12:9).

William T Still, in his book New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies (Huntington House Publishers, 1990), provides us with the following insight into the true nature of the lying spirit here at work:

“Marx was not the only Satanist of his day who professed Communism for political gain. In fact, many of his friends were of like mind. Mikhail Bakunin, the Russian anarchist, admitted the direct connection between Socialist revolutions and Satanism:

'The Evil One is satanic revolt against divine authority, revolt in which we see the fecund germ of all human emancipation, the revolution. Satan [is] the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.'

“Bakunin, who was also a member of [the] Russian nobility, goes on to explain that the true nature of revolutions is not to free the poor from exploitation, but to 'awaken the Devil in the people, to stir up the basest passions. Our mission is to destroy, not to edify.'”

(From: “Chapter Ten: Karl Marx and the Internationale”, op. cit.)

(As to the nature of the other two 'personages' detailed in the Revelation, out of the mouths of which “unclean spirits like frogs” are emitted to call forth “the kings of the earth and of the whole world . . . to . . . the battle of that great day of God Almighty”; I shall not here, at this point, elude to the historical documentation and prophetic works, that, in my opinion, furnish light on this part of the Revelation – and which, indeed, places it firmly within the historical and Historicist context).

But continuing on from the “great earthquake” (of Rev 16:18) that takes place under the seventh Vial; Revelation chapter 16; verses 19-21, describes its affect thus:

“And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell . . . And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.”

The quote below is taken from a book produced in association with the Imperial War Museum, entitled World War II (published by Dorling Kindersley Ltd, 2000). In the chapter entitled “A world divided”, the following appears:

“During the early decades of the 20th century, the world was divided into three main political camps. The first consisted of democratic nations, where people elected their own governments . . . The second – fascist Italy and Spain, Nazi Germany, nationalist Japan, and the one-party states of eastern Europe – were ruled by powerful dictators. The final camp had only one member – the Soviet Union. . . . Conflicts between the three ideologies concerning territory and economic wealth led to the world war that broke out in 1939.”

E B Elliot, in his Horæ Apocalypticæ, wrote the following interpretation concerning the seventh Vial of the Apocalypse:

“The result [of this vial is] a most remarkable revolution [which] is . . . destined to befall the European commonwealth; viz . . . [its] final breaking up . . . into a new and tripartite form . . . after fearful wars and convulsions a tripartition like this shall take place in the European commonwealth, it must be regarded as the proximate sign, and very alarum bell to Christendom, of the judgment, the great judgment being then at length close at hand.”

 (Horæ Apocalypticæ: A Commentary on the Apocalypse, Critical and Historical; including also an examination of the chief prophecies of Daniel, Fifth Edition, Vol. IV, Seeley, Jackson, and Halliday, London, 1862).

*Rev Wurmbrand (1909-2001) was imprisoned by the Communist regime in his native Romania between 1948-1956 and 1959-1964. Whilst imprisoned he was tortured for his faith in Christ. In May 1966 (having escaped his homeland with the assistance of a Scandinavian mission to the Jews), he testified before the US Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC, about his terrible experiences under Romania's Communist regime.

Darwin & “Realpolitik”

The following is from Sir Fred Hoyle's, The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and Evolution (published by Michael Joseph, London, 1983) :

“The protective instinct in man took a long step backwards from 1860 onwards. Whether Darwinism, with its philosophy that opportunism is all, was the cause of the Realpolitik that overwhelmed the world from 1860 onwards, or whether it was Realpolitik that spawned Darwinism, is hard to say, for the two went hand-in-hand, leading with mounting inevitability to two World Wars in the present century, and to a situation which today looks increasingly like a one-way journey towards self-destruction for the whole species.”

And (once more) Churchill on Realpolitik, (again) from A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Vol. 4, “The Great Democracies”; (Cassel & Company Ltd, 1958, 1974); “Book Twelve; Chapter Fifteen – The Rise of Germany” :

“Realpolitik meant that standards of morality in international affairs could be ignored whenever material advantage might be gained.”

Bismarck & Prince Hohenlohe

From a letter from Count Bismarck to Prince Hohenlohe,

Varzin, August 11, 1869 :

“There is a party there (at Rome) which has deliberately set itself to disturb the ecclesiastical and political peace of Europe with the fanatical conviction that the general misery which results from a catastrophe will augment the consequence of the Church. They reason from the experience of 1848, and they found themselves on the psychological fact that in this world, man, when he is miserable, seeks the support of the Church more eagerly than when he is contented.” – (From the Memoirs of Prince Hohenlohe, Vol. i., p. 358.)

PRINCE HOHENLOHE OF BAVARIA,

Chancellor of the German Empire

From a letter: Aussee, September 8th, 1872. “If the Jesuit Father Schrader in his book, The Pope and Modern Ideas, advanced a whole system of theories dangerous to the State; if the Civiltà Cattolica and the Korrespondenz of Geneva – the first under the eyes of the Pope, and the latter with his expressed approval – both being edited by Jesuits, both proclaim the sovereignty of the Church over the State; when the local Bavarian papers, under the control of the Jesuit Father Weisser, daily preach the destruction of the State, when the Osservatore Romano, conducted by Jesuits, reminds us that no heretic [Protestant] can be Emperor of Germany – these are 'no rash journalistic excesses,' but Acts of such importance that no one can shut his eyes to them.

“From the Catholic standpoint, it may be regrettable that we are not a Catholic country with a Catholic dynasty. But this objective complaint must not be made the spring of political action, and it can still less be tolerated that anyone in Germany makes it the starting-point of an attack on the Empire. This the Jesuits have done since the institution of their Order, and to this they are committed: that is, to the violent extermination of Protestantism.” – (Memoirs, Vol. ii., p. 83.)

“Gentlemen, what astounds me about the whole Jesuitical and anti-Jesuitical movement of our day is that the Jesuits and their friends wonder that the modern State abhors them. And yet the Society has taken upon itself to make war upon the modern State, and its members declare with the utmost openness that their purpose is to maintain the unity of the ecclesiastical doctrine and the ecclesiastical life in rigid connection with the Church as the centre of the system. In this of itself lies no danger, but the interpretation which has been put on this original definition of the founder contains a distinct declaration of war by the Jesuits against the foundations of our life as a State.”

“I am always, therefore, of the opinion that the German people must expel the Jesuits in self-defence, and if you object that I, a Catholic prince, have no right to participate in this, I answer that I am before all things a German Prince, and as such must do my duty.” – (PRINCE HOHENLOHE, Memoirs, Vol. i., pp. 75, 84.)

Extracted from the following work:

The Unveiling

OF THE

APOCALYPSE OF ST. JOHN THE DIVINE

CHAPTER X

THE ANGEL OF THE REFORMATION

H. W. Layclerc

NEW (THIRD) EDITION REVISED

LONDON:

THYNNE & Co. Ltd.

28-30 WHITEFRIARS STREET, FLEET STREET, E.C. 4.

MCMXXXVI

[1936]

The Rise of Germany

From Winston S Churchill's, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Vol. 4, “The Great Democracies”; (Cassel & Company Ltd, 1958, 1974); “Book Twelve; Chapter Fifteen – The Rise of Germany” :

'In 1861 William I of Prussia ascended the throne of Frederick the Great, and marked the first years of his reign with three public appointments whose impact on European history and modern events is incalculable. Count von Moltke became Chief of the General Staff, Count von Roon Minister of War, and – most important of all – Count Otto von Bismarck was recalled from the Embassy in Paris to become Minister-President of Prussia. First as Chancellor of the North German Federation, and finally of the German Empire, this singular genius presided with a cold passion over the unification and Prussianisation of Germany, the elimination of Prussia's nearest European rivals, and the elevation of William to the German Emperor's throne in 1871. . . .

'Absolute monarchy was [Bismarck's] ideal and aim. Liberalism and Parliamentarianism were anathema [to him]. [He believed that] Prussia must be purged of weak and liberal elements so that she could fulfil her destiny of leading and controlling the German-speaking peoples. A decisive struggle with Austria was [therefore] inevitable.

'Before a background of intense, brilliant, and unscrupulous diplomatic activity the three hammer-blows that forged Germany were deliberately prepared and struck. These were the war with Denmark in 1864, by which the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein were attached to Prussia, the Seven Weeks' War of 1866, in which Austria was crushed and her associates in Germany overrun, and as culmination the war against France in 1870.' (pp. 207-208)

'Britain played no effective part in this affair. Palmerston would have liked to intervene, for Britain had guaranteed the integrity of Denmark by the Treaty of Berlin in 1852, which he himself had helped to negotiate. Before the blow fell he had said in the House of Commons: “We are convinced – I am convinced at least – that if any violent attempt were made to overthrow [Danish] rights and interfere with that independence those who made the attempt would find in the result that it would not be Denmark alone with which they would have to contend.” But the Cabinet was hesitant and divided and was not prepared to back these imprecise assurances. . . . [Under these circumstances, and in the reluctance of any of the other European Powers to involve themselves on the side of the Danes in the dispute] Palmerston felt he could do no more than press for conferences and mediation. It is not the only time in British history when strength has been lacking to reinforce bold words. Palmerston's words had given the Danes a false sense of security and tempted them to obduracy in an argument where legality did not entirely lie on their side, though some justice did. An ominous precedent was thus set for what the Germans politely called Realpolitik, while Britain and France looked on. Realpolitik meant that standards of morality in international affairs could be ignored whenever material advantage might be gained.' (p. 209)

In Two Years After and Onwards, or The Approaching War Amongst the Powers of Europe, (published the same year as the Dano-Germanic war of 1864) the works' Author, David Pae, wrote the following concerning the position then taken by Britain in that conflict:

'The course she did take, in not rendering material aid to Denmark, was the right course, though naturally her sympathies lay on the side of the weak and ill-used power. But the course of neutrality she adopted was consistent with her policy in regard to Poland and Italy. The claims of Denmark were not greater than the claims of those other countries; but Britain, being the guardian of universal, and not sectional liberty, kept neutral towards all.' (p. 93)

And he was of the opinion that in the predicted 'universal war' to come, that it would be in the best interests of Britain to remain neutral – to 'husband her strength and resources' – up until such time as she would need to intervene in Palestine, and the Near East, to safeguard the overland route to her 'Eastern [Indian] possessions'.

John Charmley, the British historian who specialises in modern diplomatic and political history, in the Introduction to his work, Splendid Isolation? Britain, the Balance of Power and the Origins of the First World War (1999), writes:

'One strand in the 'inevitability' argument is the belief that Britain had a role to play in maintaining the balance of power in Europe and that this 'traditional' policy was being fulfilled in 1914 and 1939. Neville Chamberlain is assaulted for not following this tradition. Yet where was this 'tradition' between 1815 and 1914, or between 1714 and 1793 for that matter?

'This book dissents from the view that there was such a traditional foreign policy, and therefore from the opinion that the British involvement in the war of 1914 was inevitable; it dissents, by implication, from the view that British participation was desirable. Just before this book begins in 1874, the Germans had defeated the French. The skies had not fallen in and civilisation had not ended; nor would it have done in 1914 had the German once more defeated the French.'

But returning back to Churchill's work, and the actual events of history – Churchill continues:

'The outcome of the war with Denmark was soon to furnish the pretext and occasion for the next and far more important step of eliminating Austria from the German Confederation [(in the Seven Weeks' War of 1866), and therefore ensuring Prussian hegemony] . . . Schleswig and Holstein had [on annexation] become a condominium of Prussia and Austria. Bismarck played upon the awkwardness of this arrangement, maintaining a screen of protests against the indignant but long-suffering Austrians [whist seeking the support of the other Continental Powers]. . . .

'The stage was set. . . . Within ten days of the outbreak of war Hanover, Hesse, and Saxony were occupied. The King of Hanover, grandson of George III, fled to England and his country was incorporated in Prussia. Thus disappeared the ancient Electorate which had given Britain her Protestant dynasty in 1714. . . .

'Three weeks later the Prussians were within reach of Vienna. At Bismarck's vehement insistence the capital was spared the humiliation of occupation and the peace terms were once again lenient. Bismarck's mind was already turned to his next move, and he set store by future Austrian friendship. “So to limit a victory,” he said, “is not only generous but a most wise policy. But for the victor to benefit from it the recipient must be worthy.” Austria's only territorial loss was Venetia, granted to Italy, but she was finally excluded from Germany and her future ambitions had inevitably to lie south-eastwards among the Slavs. So ended the Seven Weeks' War. . . . The balance of Continental power had changed radically. A premonitory shudder went through France . . . .' (pp. 210, 212)