Earlier text: General ArticlesThe Ostrogoths and the Visigoths.
By A. T. J.
'The power of the Huns in China continued nearly three hundred years, till "the Sienpi, a tribe of Oriental Tartars, retaliated the injuries which they had formerly sustained; and the power of the Tanjous, after a reign of 1300 years, was [A. D. 93] utterly destroyed, before the end of the first century of the Christian era."—Dec. and Fall, chap. 26, par. 9.' 'The fate of the vanquished Huns was diversified by the various influence of character and situation. Above 100,000 persons, the poorest, indeed, and the most pusillanimous, of the people, were contented to remain in their native country, to renounce their peculiar name and origin, and to mingle with the victorious nation of the Sienpi. Fifty-eight hordes, about 200,000 men [A. D. 100, etc.], ambitious of a more honorable servitude, retired towards the south, implored the protection of the emperors of China, and were permitted to inhabit and to guard the extreme frontiers of the province of Chansi and the territory of Ortous. But the most warlike and powerful tribes of the Huns maintained, in their adverse fortune, the undaunted spirit of their ancestors. The western world was open to their valor; and they resolved, under the conduct of their hereditary chieftains, to discover and subdue some remote country which was still inaccessible to the arms of the Sienpi and to the laws of China. The course of their emigration soon carried them beyond the mountains of Imaus and the limits of the Chinese geography; but we are able to distinguish the two great divisions of these formidable exiles, which directed their march towards the Oxus, and towards the Volga.' 'It is impossible to fill the dark interval of time which elapsed after the Huns of the Volga were lost in the eyes of the Chinese, and before they showed themselves to those of the Romans. There is some reason, however, to apprehend that the same force which had driven them from their native seats, still continued to impel their march towards the frontiers of Europe. The power of the Sienpi, their implacable enemies, which extended above 3000 miles from east to west, must have gradually oppressed them by the weight and terror of a formidable neighborhood; and the flight of the tribes of Scythia would inevitably tend to increase the strength, or to contract the territories, of the Huns. The harsh and obscure appellations of those tribes would offend the ear, without informing the understanding, of the reader; but I cannot suppress the very natural suspicion, that the Huns of the North derived a considerable reinforcement from the ruin of the dynasty of the South, which, in the course of the third century, submitted to the dominion of China; that the bravest warriors marched away in search of their free and adventurous countrymen; and that, as they had been divided by prosperity, they were easily re-united by the common hardships of their adverse fortune. The Huns, with their flocks and herds, their wives and children, their dependents and allies, were transported to the west of the Volga; and they boldly advanced to invade the country of the Alani, a pastoral people who occupied, or wasted, an extensive tract of the deserts of Scythia.' 'The plains between the Volga and the Tanais were covered with the tents of the Alani, but their name and manners were diffused over the wide extent of their conquests; and the painted tribes of the Agathyrsi and Geloni were confounded among their vassals. Towards the north, they penetrated into the frozen regions of Siberia, among the savages who were accustomed, in their rage or hunger, to the taste of human flesh; and their southern inroads were pushed as far as the confines of Persia and India. The mixture of Sarmatic and German blood had contributed to improve the features of the Alani, to whiten their swarthy complexions, and to tinge their hair with a yellowish cast, which is seldom found in the Tartar race. They were less deformed in their persons, less brutish in their manners, than the Huns; but they did not yield to those formidable barbarians in their martial and independent spirit; in the love of freedom, which rejected even the use of domestic slaves; and in the love of arms, which considered war and rapine as the pleasure and the glory of mankind. A naked scimitar, fixed in the ground, was the only object of their religious worship; the scalps of their enemies formed the costly trappings of their horses; and they viewed, with pity and contempt, the pusillanimous warriors who patiently expected the infirmities of age and the tortures of lingering disease. On the banks of the Tanais, the military power of the Huns and the Alani encountered each other with equal valor, but with unequal success. The Huns prevailed in the bloody contest; the king of the Alani was slain; and the remains of the vanquished nation were dispersed by the ordinary alternative of flight or submission. A colony of exiles found a secure refuge in the mountains of Caucasus between the Euxine and the Caspian, where they still preserve their name and their independence. Another colony advanced, with more intrepid courage, towards the shores of the Baltic; associated themselves with the northern tribes of Germany; and shared the spoil of the Roman provinces of Gaul and Spain. But the greatest part of the nation of the Alani embraced the offers of an honorable and advantageous union; and the Huns, who esteemed the valor of their less fortunate enemies, proceeded, with an increase of numbers and confidence, to invade the limits of the Gothic Empire.' 'The great Hermanric, whose dominions extended from the Baltic to the Euxine, enjoyed, in the full maturity of age and reputation, the fruit of his victories, when [A. D. 375] he was alarmed by the formidable approach of a host of unknown enemies, on whom his barbarous subjects might, without injustice, bestow the epithet of barbarians. The numbers, the strength, the rapid motions, and the implacable cruelty of the Huns, were felt, and dreaded, and magnified by the astonished Goths, who beheld their fields and villages consumed with flames and deluged with indiscriminate slaughter. To these real terrors, they added the surprise and abhorrence which were excited by the shrill voice, the uncouth gestures, and the strange deformity of the Huns.' 'These savages of Scythia were compared (and the picture had some resemblance) to the animals who walked very awkwardly on two legs; and to the misshapen figures, the Termini, which were often placed on the bridges of antiquity. They were distinguished from the rest of the human species by their broad shoulders, flat noses, and small black eyes deeply buried in the head; and as they were almost destitute of beards, they never either enjoyed the manly graces of youth or the venerable aspect of age. A fabulous origin was assigned, worthy of their form and manners, that the witches of Scythia, who, for their foul and deadly practices, had been driven from society, had copulated in the desert with infernal spirits; and that the Huns were the offspring of this execrable conjunction.' 'The tale, so full of horror and absurdity, was greedily embraced by the credulous hatred of the Goths; but while it gratified their hatred, it increased their fear, since the posterity of demons and witches might be supposed to inherit some share of the preternatural powers, as well as the malignant temper, of their parents.' 'Against these enemies Hermanric prepared to exert the united forces of the Gothic State; but he soon discovered that his vassal tribes, provoked by oppression, were much more inclined to second than to repel the invasion of the Huns. One of the chiefs of the Roxolani had formerly deserted the standard of Hermanric, and the cruel tyrant had condemned the innocent wife of the traitor to be torn asunder by wild horses. The brothers of that unfortunate woman seized the favorable moment of revenge. The aged king of the Goths languished some time after the dangerous wound which he received from their daggers; but the conduct of the war was retarded by his infirmities; and the public councils of the nations were distracted by a spirit of jealousy and discord.' 'His death, which has been imputed to his own despair, left the reins of government in the hands of Withimer, who, with the doubtful aid of some Scythian mercenaries, maintained the unequal contest against the arms of the Huns and Alani, till he was defeated and slain in a decisive battle. The Ostrogoths submitted to their fate; and the royal race of the Amali will hereafter be found among the subjects of the haughty Attila. But the person of Witheric, the infant king, was saved by the diligence of Alatheus and Saphrax, two warriors of approved valor and fidelity; who, by cautious marches, conducted the independent remains of the nation of the Ostrogoths toward the Danastus, or Niester; a considerable river, which now [A. D. 1780] separates the Turkish dominions and the empire of Russia.' 'On the banks of the Niester, the prudent Athanaric, more attentive to his own than to the general safety, had fixed the camp of the Visigoths, with the firm resolution of opposing the victorious barbarians, whom he thought it less advisable to provoke. The ordinary speed of the Huns was checked by the weight of baggage and the incumbrance of captives; but their military skill deceived, and almost destroyed, the army of Athanaric. While the judge of the Visigoths defended the banks of the Niester, he was encompassed and attacked by a numerous detachment of cavalry, who, by the light of the moon, had passed the river in a fordable place; and it was not without the utmost efforts of courage and conduct that he was able to effect his retreat toward the hilly country.' 'The undaunted general had already formed a new and judicious plan of defensive war; and the strong lines which he was preparing to construct between the mountains, the Pruth, and the Danube, would have secured the extensive and fertile territory that bears the modern name of Walachia, from the destructive inroads of the Huns. But the hopes and measures of the judge of the Visigoths were soon disappointed by the trembling impatience of his dismayed countrymen; who were persuaded by their fears that the interposition of the Danube was the only barrier that could save them from the rapid pursuit and invincible valor of the barbarians of Scythia. Under the command of Fritigern and Alavivus, the body of the nation hastily advanced to the banks of the great river, and implored the protection of the Roman emperor of the East. Athanaric himself, still anxious to avoid the guilt of perjury, retired, with a band of faithful followers, into the mountainous country of Caucaland; which appears to have been guarded, and almost concealed, by the impenetrable forests of Transylvania.'—Id., chap. 26, par. 10-12. The Whole Cross Is Easier
The well-defined spiritual life is not only the highest life, but it is also the most easily lived. The whole cross is more easily carried than the half. It is the man who tries to make the best of both worlds who makes nothing of either. That is a fine and true sentiment in Rutledge, where he says, "By doing good with his money a man as it were stamps the image of God upon it, and makes it pass current for the merchandise of Heaven." A Love Story of the Olden Time.
THE twenty-fourth chapter of Genesis is thrillingly interesting. We heard it read at a large Sunday-school gathering not long ago, and have since thought more about it. The narrative takes us back nearly as many years before the birth of Christ as we live this side of that event, or over 3740 years in all. Then we see the aged patriarch Abraham administering an oath in a peculiar way to the "eldest servant of his house" (whose name is not given, but was probably Eliezer), binding him to take a journey of some hundreds of miles to get a wife for Isaac from among his kindred; the meeting in Mesopotamia with Rebekah (Isaac's cousin), at the well; the night's entertainment at her father's house; the return journey; the marriage without courtship or personal acquaintance, and the happy issue—we cannot be otherwise than interested in it as a true story of Oriental life. But knowing that "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope" (Rom. 15:4), we are led to look beneath the surface, and to ask what lessons we may learn from this record. We note but two, though there are many others. 1. TAKE EVERYTHING TO GOD IN PRAYER.
It is a sad mistake to think that only our spiritual necessities are to be spread out before him. He cares for the body as well as for the soul. He who taught us to pray, "Forgive us our sins," teaches us also to say, "Give us day by day our daily bread." Luke 11:1-3. The apostolic direction is emphatic: "In nothing be anxious; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God." Phil. 4:6, R. V. Abraham's godly servant prayed most earnestly respecting the temporal matter intrusted to him, watched the leadings of Providence, recognized the guiding hand, and made grateful acknowledgment of Jehovah's mercy. Why should not we imitate his example, at least so far as to express our desires to our heavenly Father, believe that he hears us, and that he will grant them if he sees that to do so would be for our good. 2. WE CAN LOVE THE UNSEEN.
Rebekah did. She had never seen Isaac; yet on the representations of Abraham's servant, she was willing to leave her father's house and the land of her nativity, and unite with him her interests for life. Is there not here a good illustration of gospel truth? Peter when speaking of Christ says: "Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." 1 Pet. 1:7, 8. We cannot love the unknown, though we can the unseen. Rebekah was told of Abraham's great wealth which Isaac had inherited, and had some evidence of it in the caravan which she saw, and the jewels which were bestowed upon her and her relatives. She believed the servant's words, and acted accordingly. So we have heard in the gospel of the great riches of God the Father, and the matchless love of his Son, Jesus Christ, "whom he hath appointed heir of all things;" and "though we see him not," we can assuredly love him, so that when the question is put to us, "Wilt thou go with this man?" we are ready to answer, "I will go;" and casting in our lot with the people of God, we await the day when, the journey of the church being ended, we shall meet the heavenly Bridegroom—not as a solitary man out in the field meditating, but descending from Heaven with the glorious retinue of angels, ready to escort us into his Father's presence. Then shall our eyes "see the King in his beauty," and as we "shall be forever with the Lord," there will be ample time to form a personal acquaintance. Rebekah prized the kind words which she heard and the costly jewels which were given her; yet these did not satisfy her. She wanted to see the man himself, the one to whom she was now espoused. So as Christians, greatly as we prize the graces and gifts of the Holy Spirit, we can never be satisfied until we shall see Him who loves us, who gave himself for us, and in whose personal presence we are to dwell forever. We despise not the jewels, though we want to see Isaac. THAT is a noble word of the psalmist, a grand resting place for faith,—"The word of the Lord is tried." Dean Stanley, in one of his sermons, shows how it is tried to the uttermost: "Tried by the honest investigations of science, tried by the undue claims upon it, tried by the misunderstanding and exaggeration of its friends, and yet in spite of all, 'thy servant loveth it' (Ps. 119 : 140), because he knows that there is nothing else like it in the world, nothing else which will so well repay all the trouble, anxiety, and misapprehension which its study involves. Its value has increased, not diminished, with the lapse of ages. . . . It is still the Book of books, not to one nation only, but to all mankind. "It contains treasures of wisdom, of justice, of tenderness, of toleration, and of freedom, which have never yet been exhausted. It stands on a height above all the human speculations which have gathered round it. Ancient creeds and modern confessions of theology . . . are not to be named for a moment in comparison with the loving voice of God, as it speaks to us through the loving acts and utterances of patriarch and king, lawgiver and judge, priest and soldier, psalmist and prophet, through all the manifold 'sundry times,' through all the infinitely 'divers manners' in which he inspired the teachers of his chosen people, until in these last days he has spoken to us once for all in the person of Jesus Christ his Son."—Sel. A PECULIAR bit of grotesque fanaticism seems just now to have popped up among the Salvation Army ranks. A modern fakir of this organization, and of supposed great sanctity, has been posing before the public in Paris, some of whose antics cannot be those of a sane person—such, for instance, as standing three days and three nights at a time up to his neck in water, that he may the better commune with God. St. Simeon Stylites lived some thirty years high and dry on the top of a column, sixty feet above tide-water, that he might better commune with God, as being nearer Heaven, perhaps. But our nineteenth-century saint goes down to the water for the same purpose. After all, extremes meet, and in such matters a fool at one end indicates a fool at the other end. St. Simeon, though, has had several poems addressed to him—one by Tennyson. Our latter-day fakir can hardly expect to be so fortunate.—Christian at Work. A Dangerous Tendency.
By Archbishop Tait
HERE, I fear, is a dangerous tendency of the age we live in—to regard sin rather as a misfortune or a mistake than as a fault and corruption. No one can object to the generous impulse which leads us to make due allowance for those who grow up, through no fault of their own, under unfavorable influences; and a merciful God, no doubt, considers and makes due allowance for the inevitable disadvantages under which so many human souls are reared. But still, sin is sin, and right is right, and the true church of God never falters in its condemnation of the one and its upholding of the other. It is its special business to form and maintain an elevated public opinion, based on the standard of the word of God.—Archbishop Tait. What Is Religion?
By Christian Union
IN reply to the question, What is religion? I would answer as follows: Religion is being rebound. As you are at present a scholar, I will use the words of the school. First, then, "A noun is the name of a thing." But religion being a state, or condition, it cannot be handled and measured, nor even exactly described, and so can only be defined. Let me begin the definition by analysis of the word. It is, as you know, derived from the Latin, and is a compound of the preposition re and the verb ligo, the meanings of which are, re, back, and ligo, I bind; and so comes religo, I rebind, and from this the noun, the condition of being again bound, or rebound. The same word appears in ad-ligo, softened to alligo—allegiance, that is, legiance to, or bound to. Now, allegiance, or allegiance, may be the first and an unbroken legiance between two; but a re-legiance can only be the renewal of a fealty broken by one or both parties. The sinless angel may hold allegiance to its God; only the sinful soul by a new pledge of fealty can hold re-legiance. What, then, is re-legiance? It is the state entered into by one who, seeing the ill of broken allegiance, comes back to God, acknowledging sin, makes pledge of loyalty for the future, and so enters into a new covenant, and so is rebound to him, and proves the sincerity of the bond by publicly withdrawing from the side of his enemies, and joining the ranks of his friends, and entering upon the duties devolving upon him in the new or reformed relations. When one has done this, he is religious. In this concise answer I purposely omit two things as not in the question. First, the general misuse of the word religion as meaning a faith, or belief. The Moslem may have an allegiance to the prophet, or the Hindu to Brahm, but as neither acknowledges any breaking of bonds there can be no rebinding. The Scripture teaching of sin and departure from God is the only doctrine allowing or demanding re-legiance. There be faiths and beliefs many, but, strictly, but one religion. The other point is the need, the character, and the person, of a Mediator between the breaker of the allegiance and the keeper thereof. Of one who having also been tempted, can sympathize, but who also by his loyalty may come into the presence of the True, and so "lay his hand upon both." What, then, is not religion? When the injured, but true-hearted King opens wide the palace door, and sends out to you his own Son, inviting you to come and renew your allegiance, but you sullenly stand without, refusing every act of loyalty, even though you hurl no missile of open war against the palace walls, or strike down no servant of the King as he goes to and fro doing his Sovereign's will; or if you go round about the walls, knocking with the hilt of your sword at every closed door, demanding entrance, contemptuously ignoring the door standing wide open, and the waiting messenger by it; or if you come to the open door, and, ignoring the waiting messenger, unannounced stalk boldly into the presence of the King, despising his ways and denying his authority, although you may have come into his presence, you give no sign of re-allegiance, you are not religious. What, then, is religion? It is in deep contrition for the past, in full confidence in the faith-keeping of the King, humbly but gladly taking the hand of the messenger, entering into the Sacred Presence, and there with new vows reconsecrating every weapon of rebellion and your own self also, to his service for time and for eternity, and thenceforth living to fulfill your vow—this is re-allegiance, this is rebinding, this is religion. Will you be religious? Answer to the King before you lay this my answer down.—Christian Union. The Coming of a Literal Christ.
EVERY one must accept the conclusion which has been drawn for us by the writer to whom we have referred in these articles, namely, that if the kingdom of Dan. 2:44, which was to be set up by the God of Heaven, is not literal, then the throne, the scepter, the territory, etc., are not literal; then all pertaining to it is only "spiritual" or not literal. And we insist that, if that be so, the king is not literal! We cannot possibly accept the idea of a literal king literally reigning in a kingdom which literally has no existence. That being so, we are altogether at a loss to imagine what sort of a kingdom that might be of which the prophet spoke in his interpretation of the dream. And we may further and very properly say, we are at a loss to imagine why the prophet called it "an interpretation" at all, seeing that his language conveys no tangible idea to the mind of the reader. This point we ask our readers to particularly note. We expect to show most clearly that if the prophecies which speak of Christ in both his first and his second advent are not to be interpreted literally—if they do not speak of literal facts—then Christ himself is not literal; then our Saviour is a myth, of whose existence we can have only the most vague ideas. We think we have given most incontestable evidence that the interpretation of the dream in Daniel 2 was given in literal terms. And this evidence relates as well to other prophecies, and to the parables; all must have a literal interpretation. And this view is confirmed by an examination of all the facts relating to the kingdom. 1. The kingdom represented by the stone was to be "set up" at a specified time. This language is appropriate as applied to a literal kingdom, but incomprehensible as applied to anything else. The main reason urged against the kingdom being literal is, that a literal kingdom has not been set up by our Saviour. But that is no reason in fact. To constitute that a reason, it must be proved that the time specified for setting up the kingdom is in the past, and that therefore we must of necessity discard the idea of its being literal. But that cannot be proved. To the contrary, it can clearly be proved that the time specified is yet future; and it can be proved that the events connected with its being set up are yet future. The text says: "In the days of these kings shall the God of Heaven set up a kingdom." All turns on the application of the term—"these kings." Four kingdoms are presented in the prophecy, each of which was to bear rule over all the earth. These were Babylon, Media and Persia, Greece, and Rome. The fourth, the Roman, was to be divided, as represented by the toes of the image. This same division is represented by the ten horns of the fourth beast of Daniel 7, there called ten kingdoms. In the dream of Daniel 2, the stone does not appear until the image is complete in all its parts; and when it smites the image, which is at its first appearing, it smites it on the feet, which were of iron and clay. It is generally supposed that this kingdom, or something miscalled a kingdom, was set up in the days of Christ or of his apostles. But in their days the image was not complete; the ten kings had not arisen. The Roman Empire was not divided, and it is always spoken of as a unit, a kingdom, until the time of the division; therefore the expression, "in the days of these kings," refers to the ten kingdoms,—the toes, which were to be smitten by the stone,—and not to the Roman kingdom before the division, or in the time of Christ and his apostles. And this is assurance that the dominion will never again be consolidated; there will never be another universal dominion until the God of Heaven sets up his kingdom, which shall fill the entire earth, destroying all the kingdoms which exist at the time it is set up. 2. The work ascribed to this kingdom when it is set up, confirms this view. King and kingdom are used interchangeably in the prophecies, because the king represents the kingdom. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar was said to be the head of gold, because he was ruler over Babylon; and it was said to him, "After thee shall arise another kingdom." And therefore the kingdom is said to do what the king does. Of the action of this (stone) kingdom the prophet said: "It shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms." Will it do so, or will it not? "All these kingdoms" were literal kingdoms. They will be literally broken in pieces and consumed. And this is the work ascribed to Christ, the King of this kingdom. To him the Father said: "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." Ps. 2:7-9. "The heathen" means "the nations;" this was the title of all the nations in distinction from the Israel of God. Note the point, that they are not converted, but given to him to be broken or dashed in pieces. They are enemies of the cross, and so remain till they are consumed, or destroyed. But they are not given to him until after his priesthood closes. Christ does not destroy his enemies while he is yet a priest at the right hand of his Father. And thus it is said: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Ps. 110:1. To this Paul refers in his argument on the priesthood of Christ, which is at the right hand of the Father (Heb. 8:1), where he says: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool." Heb. 10:12, 13. At what time they will be given to him may be learned from Rev. 11:15-18: "And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever and ever." The seventh trumpet ends this dispensation. That the nations are not converted when they are given to Christ, but are his enemies, thus put under his feet, is again proved in this text, verse 18: "And the nations were angry and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldst give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldst destroy them which destroy the earth." The anger of the nations is mentioned under this trumpet, for under it "the battle of that great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14) is fought by "the kings of the earth and of the whole world." And the wrath of God is revealed, because the nations are overcome and destroyed in the day of this battle. And the time is further and unmistakably fixed in these expressions—"and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldst give reward unto thy servants," etc. That the time of the judging of the dead is at or near the close of this dispensation, no one will dispute; and the Saviour fixes the time of giving reward in the following words: "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." Matt. 16:27. "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." Rev. 22:12. And this is confirmed by the words of Paul: "Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled [he will recompense] rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Thess. 1:6-8. Now in fulfillment of Dan. 2:44 we have traced the work of Christ, the king of that kingdom. It is his work to break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, for the power and authority of a kingdom is vested in its king. To keep the points clearly in the mind of the reader we will give a recapitulation. (1) The nations and kingdoms are to be given to Christ.
(2) He is to break them in pieces and destroy them.
(3) This cannot occur during his priesthood.
(4) It will take place under the seventh—or last—trumpet of Revelation, which closes this dispensation.
(5) And it will be in connection with the judging of the dead, and giving reward to the servants of God.
(6) And all this is in immediate connection with the second coming of Christ. Thus far we find that everything ascribed to the kingdom represented by the stone is yet future. 3. Again, the prophecy says, "The kingdom shall not be left to other people." In the cases of the preceding kingdoms there was succession in two respects. One generation passed away, and another occupied its place and inherited its power; and, one dominion passed away and another nation or people took the kingdom and dominion. But not so in the case of those who possess the kingdom of God. They who once possess it will possess it forever and ever; it will not be overthrown and given to another people. Paul speaks of this, and gives clear information concerning it, in his argument on the resurrection of the dead. 1 Cor. 15:50-52: "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." The words "flesh and blood" denote a corruptible condition. Man in a corruptible state cannot inherit the kingdom of God; for that is incorruptible or everlasting. If such a man should inherit such a kingdom, he would lose it by death; it would be left to others. He then says that we shall be changed "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." When we are thus changed to incorruption and immortality, we shall be fitted to inherit an incorruptible or immortal kingdom. And this fitting, or change, takes place at the coming of Christ. Compare 1 Thess. 4:13-18. Thus we find that this part of Dan. 2:44 is yet future. 4. The prosperity of the wicked will continue until they are destroyed, and until the saints possess the kingdom. In 2 Thess. 2:8, the apostle speaks of the man of sin, or "that wicked" one, being revealed, "whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." We have already shown that the enemies of Christ will be destroyed at his coming. This lawless one, who will be destroyed by the brightness of the coming of Christ, is represented in Daniel 7 by the symbol of "a little horn," which became stronger than the other horns, or kingdoms. This was the kingdom of antichrist—the papacy, Daniel said: "I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until23the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom." Dan. 7:21, 22. But this time is clearly identified in Matt. 25:31-34: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; . . . Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Prior to that time "the poor of this world, rich in faith," are "heirs of the kingdom which he [God] hath promised to them that love him." Jas. 2:5. Speaking further of the action of this little-horn power, of his persecuting the saints, and of his destruction, the prophet said: "And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High." Dan. 7:27. This covers the entire territory occupied by the four kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7, and marks the complete fulfillment of Daniel 2:35, 44,—the kingdom of the God of Heaven fills the whole earth. Again we recapitulate some points clearly shown in the Scriptures. (1) The kingdom represented by the stone, in Daniel 2, is an everlasting kingdom, which shall never pass away.
(2) The people who take possession of it will never lose it; they will possess it forever.
(3) But in order to do this, they must be made immortal before they can inherit the kingdom.
(4) When the saints inherit the kingdom, their dominion will be over the whole earth—under the whole heaven.
(5) But the wicked prevail upon the earth until the coming of Christ.
(6) They prevail also until the saints possess the kingdom.
(7) The saints are made immortal at the coming of Christ, when the trumpet sounds—"the last trump."
(8) When Christ comes in his glory, he destroys his enemies, and calls his saints to "inherit the kingdom." Are these declarations of Scripture the truths of God, or are they myths and figments? If they are not true—if they do not reveal to us actual events—then the Bible is a book of vagaries, which mocks the faith of the humble believer. But they, being true, confirm our conclusion in regard to Daniel 2, that the dream is to be interpreted literally, and the kingdom which the God of Heaven will set up is yet future, and it will be as literally a kingdom, with a king, laws, territory, subjects, etc., as was that of Babylon, Persia, Greece, or Rome. Some of the most important Scripture facts relating to this subject, remain to be considered. And when the voice of Jesus is heard saying, "What is written?" "how readest thou?" may it be seen that we have had that implicit child-like faith which led us to read aright, and to believe that which is written.