Earlier text: General ArticlesThe Empire of Grecia.
By A. T. J.
BUT it was not for Philip to carry the war against Persia. He could unite Greece under one head; he could shape the forces so that they could be wielded by one mighty arm; and then his work was done. It was reserved for a mightier than he to hurl the rugged forces of Macedon and Greece against the multitudes of the Persian king. B. c. 336, Philip was assassinated at the marriage feast of his daughter. Thus he died at the age of forty-seven years, after a reign of twenty-four years. Ochus, king of Persia, died the same year—poisoned by the eunuch Bagoas, one of his chief ministers. Alexander the Great, at twenty years of age, succeeded Philip as king of Macedon, and Darius Codomannus succeeded Ochus in the rule of the Persian Empire. Thus the last king of Persia and his conqueror, that was to be, began to reign in the same year—B. c. 336. See Rollin, "Hist. of Philip," sec. 7, par. 1; and "Hist. of Alexander," sec. 2, par. 1; "Seven Great Monarchies," Fifth Mon., chap. 7, par. 188. "The prospects of Alexander were full of uncertainty and peril, up to the very day of Philip's assassination. . . . Cleopatra [Philip's second wife] was at this time in the ascendent; Olympia [Philip's divorced wife, mother of Alexander] was violent and mischievous; and Philip only forty-seven years of age. Hence the future threatened nothing but aggravated dissension and difficulties for Alexander. . . . From such formidable perils, visible in the distance, if not immediately impending, the sword of Pausanias [Philip's assassin] guaranteed both Alexander and the Macedonian kingdom. But at the moment when the blow was struck, and when the Lynkestian Alexander, one of those privy to it, ran to forestall resistance, and place the crown on the head of Alexander the Great, no one knew what to expect from the young prince thus suddenly exalted, at the age of twenty years. . . . It remained to be proved whether the youthful son of Philip was capable of putting down opposition and upholding the powerful organization created by his father. "But Alexander, present and proclaimed at once by his friends, showed himself, both in word and deed, perfectly competent to the emergency. He mustered, caressed, and conciliated, the divisions of the Macedonian army and the chief officers. His addresses were judicious and energetic, engaging that the dignity of the kingdom should be maintained unimpaired, and that even the Asiatic projects already proclaimed should be prosecuted with as much vigor as if Philip still lived. "By unequivocal manifestations of energy and address, and by dispatching rivals or dangerous malcontents, Alexander thus speedily fortified his position on the throne at home. But from the foreign dependents of Macedon—Greeks, Thracians, and Illyrians—the like acknowledgment was not so easily obtained. Most of them were disposed to throw off the yoke; yet none dared to take the initiative of moving, and the suddenness of Philip's death found them altogether unprepared for combination. By that event the Greeks were discharged from all engagement, since the vote of the confederacy had elected him personally as imperator. They were now at full liberty, in so far as there was any liberty at all in the proceeding, to elect any one else, or to abstain from re-electing at all, and to even let the confederacy expire. "Now it was only under constraint and intimidation, as was well known both in Greece and Macedonia, that they had conferred this dignity on Philip, who had earned it by splendid exploits, and had proved himself the ablest captain and politician of the age. They were by no means inclined to transfer it to a youth like Alexander, until he had shown himself capable of bringing the like coercion to bear, and extorting the same submission. The wish to break loose from Macedonia, widely spread throughout the Grecian cities, found open expression from Demosthenes and others in the assembly at Athens. "Apprised of these impulses prevalent throughout the Grecian world, Alexander felt the necessity of checking them by a demonstration immediate, as well as intimidating. The energy and rapidity of his proceedings speedily overawed all those who had speculated on his youth, or had adopted the epithets applied to him by Demosthenes. Having surmounted, in a shorter time than was supposed possible, the difficulties of his newly-acquired position at home, he marched into Greece at the head of a formidable army, seemingly about two months after the death of Philip. He was favorably received by the Thessalians, who passed a vote constituting Alexander head of Greece in place of Philip; which vote was speedily confirmed by the Amphictyonic assembly, convoked at Thermopylæ. "Alexander next advanced to Thebes, and from thence over the isthmus of Corinth into Peloponnesus. . . . His great force probably not inferior to that which had conquered at Chæroneia, spread terror everywhere, silencing all except his partisans. Nowhere was the alarm greater than at Athens. The Athenians, recollecting both the speeches of their orators, and the votes of their assembly . . . trembled lest the march of Alexander should be directed against their city, and accordingly made preparation for a siege. . . . At the same time, the assembly adopted . . . a resolution of apology and full submission to Alexander; they not only recognized him as chief of Greece, but conferred upon him divine honors, in terms even more emphatic than those bestowed on Philip. The mover, with other legates, carried the resolution to Alexander, whom they found at Thebes, and who accepted the submission. "After displaying his force in various portions of Peloponnesus, Alexander returned to Corinth, where he convened deputies from the Grecian cities generally. . . . Alexander asked from the assembled deputies the same appointment which the victorious Philip had required and obtained two years before—the hegemony or headship of the Greeks collectively for the purpose of prosecuting war against Persia. To his request of a prince at the head of an irresistible army, one answer only was admissible. He was nominated imperator with full powers by land and sea. "The convention sanctioned by Alexander was probably the same as that settled by and with his father Philip. Its grand and significant feature was, that it recognized Hellas [Greece] as a confederacy under the Macedonian prince as imperator, president, or executive head and arm. It crowned him with a legal sanction as keeper of the peace within Greece, and conqueror abroad in the name of Greece."—Grote's History of Greece, chap. 91, par. 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18. Alexander "summoned, at Corinth, the assembly of the several States and free cities of Greece, to obtain from them the same supreme command against the Persians as had been granted to his father a little before his death. No diet ever debated on a more important subject. It was the Western world deliberating on the ruin of the East, and the methods for executing a revenge that had been suspended more than an age. The assembly held at this time will give rise to events, the relation of which will appear astonishing and almost incredible; and to revolutions which will change the appearance of things nearly throughout the world. "To form such a design required a prince, bold, enterprising, and experienced in war; . . . but above all, a monarch who had supreme authority over all the States of Greece, none of which singly was powerful enough to make so arduous an attempt; and which required, in order to their acting in concert, to be subject to one chief, who might give motion to the several parts of that great body, by making them all concur to the same end. Such a prince was Alexander. It was not difficult for him to rekindle in the minds of the people their ancient hatred of the Persians, their perpetual and irreconcilable enemies whose destruction they had more than once sworn, and whom they had determined to extirpate, in case an opportunity should ever present itself for that purpose. . . . The deliberations of the assembly were therefore very short, and that prince was unanimously* appointed generalissimo against Persia."—Rollin, Hist. Alexander, sec. 2, par. 15, 16. While Alexander left "Macedonian officers in the exercise of their new imperial authority throughout Greece and the islands," he himself "returned home to push the preparations for his Persian campaign. He did not however think it prudent to transport his main force into Asia, until he had made his personal ascendancy felt by the Macedonian dependencies, westward, northward, and northeastward of Pella—Illyrians, Pæonians, and Thracians. Under these general names were comprised a number of distinct tribes, or nations, warlike and for the most part predatory. Having remained unconquered until the victories of Philip, they were not kept in subjection even by him without difficulty: nor were they at all likely to obey his youthful successor, until they had seen some sensible evidence of his personal energy."—Grote, chap. 91, par. 26. But they were soon effectually treated to a "sensible evidence of his personal energy"—in just about five months he had swept the country from the borders of Macedonia through the midst of Thracia and Mœsia to and across the Danube at about the twenty-sixth degree of longitude; then up the Danube about 150 miles; then southeastward to the southern point of Lake Lychnidus (the present Ochrida Lake) in the southern part of Illyria (the present Albania); and in less than three weeks afterward he stood with his army in Bœotia, to the south of Thebes, ready to chastise that city for her rebellion during his absence. Thebes was razed to the ground; and Alexander marched on to Corinth, where he received deputations from various Grecian cities, and presided at a meeting of the assembled deputies of the Grecian States, where he levied the quota of troops that each State should supply in the intended expedition, the following spring, against Persia. This being settled, "Alexander left Greece for Pella in the autumn of 335 B. c., and never saw it again."—Grote, chap. 91, last paragraph but one. For the full account of this expedition beyond the Danube and back to Thebes and to Corinth, see Grote, chap. 91, par. 27 and to the end of the chapter. For the line of march, not only here but in all his campaigns, see "Ginn & Heath's Classical Atlas," map No. 19. "The ensuing winter was employed in completing his preparations; so that early in the spring of 334 B. c., his army, destined for the conquest of Asia, was mustered between Pella and Amphipolis, while his fleet was at hand to lend support."—Grote, chap. 92, par. 1. "The army intended for Asia, having been assembled at Pella was conducted by Alexander himself first to Amphipolis, where it crossed the Strymon; next along the road near the coast, to the river Nestus and to the towns of Abdera and Maroneia; then through Thrace across the rivers Hebrus and Melas; lastly, through the Thracian Chersonese to Sestos. Here it was met by his fleet, consisting of 160 triremes, with a number of trading vessels besides; made up in large proportions from contingents581 furnished by Athens and Grecian cities. The passage of the whole army—infantry, cavalry, and machines—on ships, across the strait from Sestos in Europe to Abydos in Asia, was superintended by Parmenio, and accomplished without either difficulty or resistance. "The army when reviewed on the Asiatic shore after its crossing, presented a total of 30,000 infantry, and 4,500 cavalry. . . . Besides these troops, there must have been an effective train of projectile machines and engines, for battles and sieges, which we shall soon find in operation. As to money, the military chest of Alexander, exhausted in part by profuse donatives to Macedonian officers," contained only seventy talents—$78,085—no more than enough to maintain his army for thirty days; besides this he had, in bringing together and fitting out his army, incurred a debt of about $1,450,150.—Grote, chap. 92, par. 24, 27, 28. Thus, in the spring of 334 B. c., on the soil of the Persian Empire, stood Alexander the Great, "as the chief of united Greece," and "the conqueror abroad in the name of Greece," carrying to all the nations of the East the Greek power, Greek art, the Greek language, and Greek civilization. And so, according to the word of the Lord, spoken two hundred years before, "The Prince of Grecia" HAD "come." Dan. 10 : 20. Bible-Reading on the Two Covenants.
By R. F. Cottrell
a. A mutual agreement, or contract. It always requires two parties, at least, to make a covenant. b. A writing containing terms of agreement. 2. When was the old, or “first covenant” made with Israel? “In the day,” says God, “that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.” Jer. 31 : 32. “The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.” Deut. 5 : 2. 4. What did the Lord do at that time? “The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire.” Verse 4. 5. What did he speak out of the midst of the fire? “And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments.” Deut. 4 : 13. 6. Did the people act a part in making the covenant at Horeb? “The Lord our God made a covenant with us.” 7. Did the people help God make the ten commandments? 8. Did God and the people make a mutual agreement, or contract, at the mount in Horeb? Said God to Moses, “If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant [the ten commandments, Deut. 4 : 13], then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people. . . . These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” Ex. 19 : 5, 6. 9. When Moses laid these words before the people, what did they reply? “And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken will we do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord.” Verse 8. 10. In these transactions, did God and the people mutually make an agreement, contract, or covenant? 11. After they had heard his voice from Sinai, which they had promised to obey, did they ratify the covenant which they had made? “And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.” Ex. 24 : 3. “And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord. . . . And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people; and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.” See Ex. 24 : 4-8. 13. Were “these words” of the Lord the covenant, or was the covenant an agreement between the Lord and the people “concerning all these words”? 14. Did the people break the covenant? 15. When they had broken their promise, was the Lord bound to fulfill his? “Should I have continued a husband unto them, saith the Lord.” Verse 32, margin. 16. With whom was the new covenant to be made? “With the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.” Verse 31. 17. How can Gentiles partake of its blessing? 18. By what blood is the new covenant dedicated? Said Jesus, “This is my blood of the new testament.” Matt. 26 : 28. 19. When God promised a new covenant, did he promise a new law? Said he, “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.” Jer. 31 : 33. 20. What said the Mediator of the new covenant concerning the existing law? “Think not that I am come to destroy the law. . . . Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” Matt. 5 : 17, 18. 21. Repeat some of the “better promises” (Heb. 8 : 6) upon which the “better covenant” is established. “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.” “They all shall know me.” “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” Being redeemed from sin by the blood of Christ (Heb. 9 : 15) they “receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” R. F. COTTRELL. WHAT most people are anxious to find in the way of regular employment, is something easy to do. And yet the things which are easy to do are often the things which are not worth doing. It is a long struggle to make a great reputation as a lawyer; one can gain local notoriety as a lawbreaker in a week, or perhaps in an hour, and with hardly any effort. It may take the hard work of a dozen years to give a man a limited reputation for wisdom; the easy act of a moment, in a suitable place, may give a man immediately a national reputation for folly. Building requires wisdom and care. The deadly beauty of the basilisk’s eye is the true type of much earthly beauty; its fatal gleam arrests the victim’s gaze, and holds him motionless until fangs sink into the flesh, and venom is carried into the very life. The charm with which so many wrong actions are invested, the glamor which makes so many things which are known to be evil still attractive to us,—this is the real basilisk eye, this the true beauty of the serpent. The tempter never comes, for the first time of tempting, in a repulsive shape; nor do the lamps burn blue at his appearing. When he comes, he is most likely to conform himself to our habits and tastes; to the cultivated and polite, he will appear most delicately refined; to the jovial and the hearty, he will come in the shape of the “good fellow,” after their own heart; to the student in Faust, he appeared as a finished and worldly wise scholar; to some he may even appear in a winsome and beautiful human face. But, however he appears, he is more to be feared the more attractive he seems; and we, who are not ignorant of his devices, ought to have more than beauty or attractiveness to judge by ere we pronounce as good that which Satan offers, and that evil which, perhaps, God is offering.—S. S. Times. Covetousness and Contentment
The case of Ahab (1 Kings 21 : 1-16) illustrates very forcibly the evil of covetousness. "Ahab came into his house heavy and displeased because of the word which Naboth . . . had spoken to him." Ahab had lost nothing which he had before. He simply wanted that which belonged to another; and because he could not obtain that one vineyard, his kingdom seemed to him as nothing. Covetousness makes us wretched, however much is ours. Contentment makes us happy, however little we have. The apostle has well said that "godliness with contentment is great gain." Work and Wait.
By Christian Union
THERE are exceptions to most rules, and, therefore, while it remains true that faithful service in every calling and station is sure to command respect and advancement, it is still true that some men put all their conscience into their work, and, for the time, get their labor for their pains. They serve without recognition, and with only a poor return for their fidelity. The recognition of work well and faithfully done, which is such a spur to the worker; the consciousness of deepening hold on one's place, and of growing opportunities in one's future, which are stimulus and inspiration in toil, are denied; there is none of the joy of work, because none of its legitimate rewards. The sense of increasing value to the world, which is so grateful to the man of high purpose, is lost, because there are no evidences by which one can measure it. Day after day such men go to their places at their desks or behind the counter, give all their skill, strength, heart, to the duties of the day, and night after night they go to their homes tired, discouraged, and heartsick because no word of encouragement, no expression of appreciation, no hearty grasp of the hand, has given evidence that their labor has not been in vain. Such men work as he might work who felt that the sublime laws of the universe were with him, but had no nearer, warmer, more helpful support. Such men, prompted and sustained as they are in their fidelity by a sense of duty only, are to be honored and reverenced. Their service is free from selfishness; it is rendered directly to that God who lifts all duty above human conditions and rewards it as inevitably as day follows night. But such faithful servants rarely fail, in the end, of material rewards. Good work cannot be hidden, and no one knows from what source it may bring recognition. If the employer fails to appreciate or recognize it, others have keener eyes and clearer perceptions of its value. The clerk who is putting his whole heart into the service of an ungrateful employer never knows what eyes are upon him, nor who is taking note of his capacity and faithfulness. At a time when he is most disheartened, and from a quarter whence he least expects it, the call to preferment may come. The lives of successful men—successful because of faithful service—are full of just such advancements; light has broken when the darkness seemed deepest and most confirmed; the door of preferment swung wide, like the gates of Paul’s prison, when the narrow walls seemed most impenetrable. Good work, in the long run, is sure of its reward; it carries the seed of honest success in its bosom, and sooner or later the blossom will discover to the world the life that fed it in silence and darkness.—Christian Union. The Sabbath-School.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—OCT. 17.
"In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream, and visions of his head upon his bed; then he wrote the dream, and told the sum of the matters." Dan. 7: 1. The exactness of the Bible narrative is worthy of note. "In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon." Concerning Belshazzar as king of Babylon, and the time of his reign, we extract the following from Rawlinson:— "Nebuchadnezzar expired at Babylon in the forty-fourth year of his reign, B. c. 561, after an illness of no long duration. He was probably little short of eighty years old at his death. The successor of Nebuchadnezzar was his son Evil-Merodach, who reigned only two years, and of whom very little is known. . . . He had been but two years upon the throne when a conspiracy was formed against him; he was accused of lawlessness and intemperance; his own brother-in-law, Neriglissar, the husband of a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, headed the malcontents; and Evil-Merodach lost his life with his crown. Neriglissar, the successful conspirator, was at once acknowledged king. . . . Neriglissar reigned from B. c. 559 to B. c. 556, and, dying a natural death in the last-named year, left his throne to his son, Laborosoarchod, or Labossoracus. This prince, who was a mere boy, and therefore quite unequal to the task of governing a great empire in critical times, was not allowed to retain the crown many months. . . . On the death of Laborosoarchod the conspirators selected one of their number, a certain Nabonadius, or Nabannidochus, and invested him with the sovereignty. . . . It is probable that one of his first steps on ascending the throne was to connect himself by marriage with the royal house which had preceded him in the kingdom. . . . Very shortly after the accession of Nabonadius (B. c. 555) he received an embassy from the far northwest. . . . At the earliest possible moment—probably when he was about fourteen—he had associated with him in the government, his son, Belshazzar, or Bel-sharuzar, the grandson of the great Nebuchadnezzar."—Fourth Monarchy, chap. 8, par. 38-50. THIS gives us the Babylonian succession from Nebuchadnezzar to the end of the monarchy. The monument contains the names of both Nabonadius and Belshazzar, and for a long time historians thought they referred to the same person. Further research has shown their true relationship. As Belshazzar was left in Babylon, never leaving it, so far as known, he is very properly termed king of Babylon, the more so, as he really held that title, in conjunction with his father. Cyrus, king of Persia, is in one place (Ezra 5:13) called the king of Babylon, because that was his capital. As will be noticed, the date in the margin of Dan. 7:1, agrees with the historian, in placing the first year of Belshazzar in B. c. 555. "DANIEL spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another." Dan. 7:2, 3. The Scriptures never put a man under the necessity of guessing at anything that is intended for him to know—and whatever is revealed is designed for us. Deut. 29:29. So we find in this same chapter the clew to unravel the whole thing. In verse 17 we are told in plain words that "these great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth." And then, showing us that not individual kings but kingdoms are meant, the next verse continues: "But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever." ANOTHER thing is shown by verse 17. We learn from it that these four kingdoms terminate with the kingdom of God, of which the saints are heirs, and in which they are to dwell forever. We found that this was the termination of the four kingdoms of Dan. 2. Now when we note that these beasts came up one after another (see verses 4-7), and that they represent kings that bear rule over all the earth (see verse 23), we know that the four kings of Dan. 7 must be identical with the four kings of Dan. 2. For it is an utter impossibility that two series of universal kingdoms should exist in the earth at the same time. THERE are two other symbols in this prophecy, but they are easily explained. We know that the winds and the sea are symbolical, for the beasts are symbolical, and literal winds and waters do not produce real kingdoms. Winds blowing on the ocean always produce commotion; and since it is as the result of the commotion thus produced that the four kingdoms arise, we must conclude that by the blowing of the winds on the sea, wars are indicated, since it is through strife and bloodshed that kingdoms arise. We shall find that prophecy bears us out in this conclusion. IT must be accepted as a fact that when a symbol is once used in prophecy, with a certain meaning, it must have the same meaning in whatever other prophecy it is found. If this were not so, we would have no harmony in the Bible. By following this principle, all is harmonious. In the 17th of Revelation, John speaks of a woman that he saw, sitting on many waters (verse 1), and the angel told him (verse 15) that these waters were "peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and kings." Then the great sea, of Daniel 7, represents the people of the earth. See also Isa. 8:7, where the king of Assyria is called "the waters of the river." If the sea means people, then of course the stirring up of the sea, by winds, denotes the stirring up of the people—strife. In harmony with this, we find in Jer. 25:32, 33, that as the result of a great whirlwind in all the earth, the slain cover all the earth. In Rev. 7:1-3 the winds—the fierce passions of men—are represented as being held so that the earth may not be hurt. THE prophecy, then, simply brings to view the four universal empires,—Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecia, and Rome,—each arising as the result of the ungoverned passions of the people. The first, Babylon, with its power and glory, was represented by a lion, with eagle's wings. Dan. 7:4. It was described as follows: "For, lo, I raise up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation. . . . Their horses also are swifter than the leopards, and are more fierce than the evening wolves; and their horsemen shall spread themselves, and their horsemen shall come from far; they shall fly as the eagle that hasteth to eat." Hab. 1:6-8. BUT the prophet beheld until the wings wherewith it was lifted up from the earth, were plucked, and it was made to stand on its feet as a man. Instead of flying over the country, in conquest, it came to a full stop. Then the second, Medo-Persia, was represented by a bear with three ribs in its mouth, indicating its ferocious disposition. Calmet, a Catholic commentator, in reference to this passage, says that the Persians have exercised the most severe and the most cruel dominion that we know of. The cruelty of the Medes is described in Isa. 13:17, 18. The third kingdom, Grecia, was represented by the leopard with four wings. Nothing could more fitly represent the Grecian empire under Alexander, whose very name is a synonym for celerity of movement. Says Rollin (Book XV, sec. 2, last par.), "Alexander, in less than eight years, marched his army upwards of seventeen hundred leagues, without including his return to Babylon." And he conquered enemies as he went. BUT the fourth beast was the one concerning which Daniel wished information. He knew what they all represented, but the fourth was "dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it; and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns." Dan. 7:7. It needs no further argument to show that this represents Rome, for the 23d verse says: "The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth." For the more full proof that the fourth kingdom is Rome, see note in preceding number of the SIGNS. "AND the ten horns are ten kings that shall arise." Verse 24. This does not refer to ten successive kingdoms, because, "Another shall arise after them, and he shall subdue three kings." When the little horn arose, he plucked up three of the first horns by the roots. Verse 8. If the ten came up one after another, then there would simply have been eleven kings; and he could not have plucked up three out of the ten as he came up, if all had not existed at once. The ten horns refer to the ten divisions of Western Rome. While different commentators have differed slightly as to the names of these divisions, all agree that they were formed, and that they exist to-day as the various States of Europe. These divisions are also indicated by the toes of the image. We know this from the statement that "in the days of these kings shall the God of Heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed." Dan. 2:44. The expression, "these kings," could not by any possibility refer to the four kingdoms, for the kingdom of God could not be set up in the days of all of them, since one succeeded the other. It could not have been set up in the days of Babylon, and also in the days of Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Not until after the division of Rome, which took place in the fifth century, was that kingdom to be set up. When it is set up, it will fill the whole earth, to the exclusion of all human governments. Comments on the kingdom represented by the little horn, must necessarily be reserved for other lessons. E. J. W.