pieces, and scattered them as the wind does "the chaff of the summer threshing-floor." Yet, through all this time, a portion of its strength was to remain. And so the prophet says, " And as the toes of the feet were part of iron and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly broken." (ver. 42.) How, in any other way, can you so strikingly represent the facts? For more than fourteen hundred years this tenfold division has existed. Warriors and statesmen have dreamed of rearing on these dominions one mighty kingdom. Charlemagne tried it. Charles V. tried it. Louis XIV. tried it. Napoleon tried it. But none of them succeeded. A single verse of prophecy was stronger than their hosts. Their own power was wasted, frittered away, destroyed; but the ten kingdoms did not become one. "Partly strong and partly broken" was the prophetic description. And such, too, has been the historic fact concerning them. "With the book of history open before us, I ask, is not this an exact representation of the remnants of this once mighty empire? It ruled with unlimited power. It was the throned mistress of the world. Its sceptre was broken; its throne pulled down; its power was taken away. Ten kingdoms were formed out of it; and 'broken' as then it was, it still continues-i. e. partly broken.' For its dimensions still continue as when the kingdom of iron stood upright on its feet. And then, it is 'partly strong'-i. e. it retains, even in its broken state, enough of its iron strength to resist all attempts to mould its parts together. This shall not be,' says the Word of God. This has not been,' replies the book of history. "But then, men may say, 'Another plan remains. If force cannot avail, diplomacy and reasons of State may-we will try them.' And so the prophecy foreshadows this when it says, "They shall mingle themselves with the seed of men'-i. e. marriages shall be formed, in hope thus to consolidate their power, and, in the end, to unite these divided kingdoms into one. "And shall this device succeed? No. The prophet answers, They shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.' And the history of Europe is but a running commentary on the exact fulfilment of these words.* From the time of Canute until the present age, it has been the policy of the reigning monarchs, the beaten path which they have trodden, in order to reach a mightier sceptre, and a wider sway. And the most signal instance of it which history has recorded in our own day, is in the case of Napoleon. He ruled in one of the kingdoms; Austria was another. He sought to reach by alliance what he could not gain by force, i. e. to build up one mighty, consolidated empire. And did he succeed? Nay. The very power with which he was allied proved his destruction in the troops of Blucher on the field of Waterloo! The iron would not mingle with the clay. The ten kingdoms continue still. "And yet if, as the result of these alliances, or of * Perhaps of all the European powers, Austria has been most distinguished in her attempts thus to enlarge her dominious. Indeed, these "fortunate marriages," as they have been called, have given rise to the couplet "Bella gerant alii: tu, felix Austria, nube ; Mars gives them kingdoms; Venus sends thee thine. other causes, that number is sometimes disturbed, it need not surprise us. It is, indeed, just what the prophecy seems to call for. The iron was mixed with the clay. For a season, in the image you might not distinguish between them. But they would not remain so. They shall not cleave one to another.' The nature of the substances forbids them to do so in the one case; the word of prophecy in the other. Yet there was to be the attempt to mingle--nay, more, there was an approach at mingling in both cases. But it was to be abortive. And how marked the emphasis with which history affirms this declaration of the word of God!" THE FAITHFUL MARTYRS. CHAPTER III. "THIS chapter, which is complete in itself, or which embraces the entire narrative relating to an important transaction, contains the account of a magnificent brazen image erected by Nebuchadnezzar, and the result of attempting to constrain the conscientious Hebrews to worship it. The narrative comprises the following points : "1. The erection of the great image in the plain of Dura (ver. 1). "2. The dedication of the image in the presence of the great princes and governors of the provinces, the high officers of state, and an immense multitude of the people, accompanied with solemn music (vers. 2-7). "3. The complaint of certain Chaldeans respecting the Jews, that they refused to render homage to the image, reminding the king that he had solemnly enjoined this on all persons, on penalty of being cast into a burning furnace in case of disobedience (vers. 8—12). This charge was brought particularly against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. Daniel escaped the accusation, for reasons which will be stated. The common people of the Jews also escaped, as the command extended particularly to the rulers. "4. The manner in which Nebuchadnezzar received this accusation (vers. 13-15). He was filled with rage; he summoned the accused into his presence; he commanded them to prostrate themselves before the image on penalty of being cast at once into the fiery furnace." It has been supposed that Shinar, the great site of the temple of Baal-the tower of Babel, raised to defend, as its builders supposed, the human race against the fury of another flood-was the site on which this golden image was set up by Nebuchadnezzar the king; its height being three score cubits, and its breadth six cubits. Some think that it was designed, if possible, to recover the ground lost by the confusion of tongues; and that he meant to show that he had still power to erect at least a figure that would demonstrate his proud defiance alike of the judgments and the threatenings of God. Others think that the image was copied from that of his dream, and was a vague representation of what we read in the previous chapter. This image seems at first sight to be very unequal in its proportions: assuming the cubit to be eighteen inches-called so because it means the length from the elbow to the tip of the longest finger—it would be sixty cubits, or ninety feet in height; and the breadth would be only six cubits, or nine feet. But it has been supposed by those that have scientifically studied it, that the pedestal is included in the height; the pedestal being of very great height, and being assumed as part of the length of the whole, the image appears not so very disproportionate. Assuming the pedestal to have been some twenty or twenty-five cubits in height, then the image would not have been so unsymmetrical in its relative length and breadth. E |