I would argue that tense change is not what is happening here. I think the later part would be "the war to overthrow him is ended, and the land is entered a state of renewal", and then the second "is" would have been removed.

Even if that was the intent, since both the preceding clauses have the "is," the sudden lack of it is extremely jarring, and I am not inclined to be charitable to a man who has demonstrated several deep misunderstandings of grammar.