to perform acts of charity, with the hope that God might be merciful and avert from him a doom so humiliating-so much to be dreaded, ch. iv. 19-27.

Under the immediate successor of Nebudchadnezzar-EvilMerodach-Daniel appears to have been forgotten, and his talents and his former services seem to have passed away from the recollection of those in power. His situation at court appears to have been confined to an inferior office (ch. viii. 27), and it would seem also that this led him occasionally, if not regularly, away from Babylon to some of the provinces to attend to business there. This was not strange. On the death of a monarch, it was not unusual to discharge the officers who had been employed in the government, as, at the present time, on the death of a king, or a change of dynasty, the members of the cabinet are changed; or as the same thing happens in our own country when a change occurs in the Chief Magistracy of the nation.* Sir John Chardin in his MS. Notes on Persia says that, in his time, on the death of a Shah or king, all the soothsayers and physicians attached to the court were at once dismissed from office; the former because they did not predict his death, and the latter because they did not prevent it. It is to be remembered also, that Daniel was raised to power by the will of Nebuchadnezzar alone, and that the offices which he held were, in part, in consequence of the service which he had rendered that prince; and it is not strange, therefore, that on a change of the government, he, with perhaps the other favorites of the former sovereign, should be suffered to retire. We find consequently no mention made of Daniel during the reign of EvilMerodach, or in the short reign of his successor; we lose sight of him until the reign of Belshazzar, the last king of Babylon, and then he is mentioned only in connection with the closing scene of his life, ch. v. In consequence of a remarkable vision. which Belshazzar had of a hand-writing on the wall, and of the inability of any of the wise men of the Chaldeans to read and interpret it, Daniel, at the instance of the queen-mother, who remembered his former services at court, was called in, and read the writing, and announced to the king the impending

• Since this was written, a remarkable illustration of what is here said has occurred in our own country, on the death of the late President, Gen. Zachary Taylor. It will be recollected that on the very night of his death, all the members of the cabinet tendered their resignation to his constitutional successor, and all of them in fact ceased to hold office and retired to private life.

destiny of himself and his empire. For this service he was again restored to honour, and the purpose was formed to raise him to an exalted rank at court; a purpose which was, however, frustrated by the fact that Babylon was that very night taken, and that the government passed into the hands of the Medes and Pérsians. It was under this king, however, that Daniel had two of his most remarkable visions (ch. vii. viii.), respecting future events-visions which perhaps more definitely than any other in the Scriptures, disclose what is to occur in the ages to come.

After the conquest of Babylon by the united arms of the Medes and Persians, under the reign of Darius or Cyaxares, Daniel was raised again to an exalted station. The whole kingdom was divided into one hundred and twenty provinces, and over these, three presidents or chief governors were appointed, and of these Daniel had the first rank, ch. vi. 1-3. The reasons of this appointment are not stated, but they were doubtless found in such circumstances as the following: that it was desirable for Darius to employ some one who was familiar with the affairs of the Babylonian empire; that Daniel probably had knowledge on that subject equal or superior to any other one that could be found; that he had long been employed at court, and was familiar with the laws, usages and customs that prevailed there; that he knew better than any one else perhaps, what would secure the tranquillity of that portion of the empire; that, being himself a foreigner, it might be supposed better to employ him than it would be a native Chaldean, for it might be presumed that he would be less inimical to a foreign dominion. Under these circumstances he was again raised to a high rank among the officers of the government; but his elevation was not beheld without malice and envy. Those who might have expected this office for themselves, or who were dissatisfied that a foreigner should be thus exalted, resolved, if possible, to bring him into such a situation as would ruin him, ch. vi. 4. To do this, they determined to take advantage of a principle in the government of the Medes and Persians, that a law having once received the royal sanction could not be changed, and by securing the passage of such a law as they knew Daniel would not obey, they hoped to humble and ruin him. They, therefore, under plausible pretences, secured the passage of a law that no one in the realm should be allowed for a certain time to offer any petition to any God or man, except the king, on penalty of being thrown into a den of lions. Daniel, as

they anticipated, was the first to disregard this law, by continuing his regular habit of worshipping God, praying, as he had been accustomed, three times a day, with his window open. The consequence was, that the king, there being no way to prevent the execution of the law, allowed it to be executed. Daniel was cast into the den of lions, but was miraculously preserved; and this new proof of his integrity, and of the divine favour, was the means of his being raised to more exalted honour, (ch. vi.) In this situation at court, and with these advantages for promoting the interests of his people, he employed himself in seriously and diligently securing the return of the exiles to their own country, though it does not appear that he himself returned, or that he contemplated a return. It is probable that he supposed that at his time of life it would not be wise to attempt such a journey; or that he supposed he could be of more use to his countrymen in Babylon in favouring their return, than he could by accompanying them to their own land. His position at the court of the Medo-Persian government gave him an opportunity of rendering material aid to his people, and it is not improbable that it was through his instrumentality that the decree was obtained from Cyrus which allowed them to return. One of the designs of Providence in raising him. up, was, doubtless, that he might exert that influence at court, and that he might thus be the means of restoring the exiles. He had at last the happiness to see his most ardent wishes accomplished in this respect.

In the third year of Cyrus, he had a vision, or a series of visions, (chs. x. xi. xii.) containing minute details respecting the history and sufferings of his nation to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, concluding with a more general representation (ch. xii.) of what would occur in the last days of the world's history. Beyond this, nothing certain is known of Daniel. The accounts respecting him are vague, confused, and strange. How long he lived, and when and where he died, are points on which no certain information can now be obtained. Josephus gives no account of his latter days, or of his death, though he says respecting him, "he was so happy as to have strange revelations made to him, and these as to one of the greatest of the prophets, insomuch that while he was alive he had the esteem and applause both of kings and of the multitude; and now he is dead he retains a remembrance that will never fail." Ant. b. x. ch. xi. It is commonly believed that he died in Chaldea, having been detained there by his employments in the Persian

empire. Epiphanius says that he died in Babylon, and this has been the commonly received opinion of historians. This opinion, however, has not been universal. Some suppose that he died at Shusan or Susa. Josephus (Ant. b. x. ch. xi.) says that, "on account of the opinion which men had that he was beloved of God, he built a tower at Ecbatana in Media, which was a most elegant building, and wonderfully made," and that it was still remaining in his day. Benjamin of Tudela says that his monument was shown at Chuzestan, which is the ancient Susa. As Benjamin of Tudela professes to record what he saw and heard, and as his 'Itinerary' is a book which has been more frequently transcribed and translated than almost any other book, except the Travels of Maundeville, it may be of some interest to copy what he has said of the tomb of Daniel. It is a record of the traditions of the East, the country where Daniel lived and died, and it is not improbably founded in essential truth. At any rate, it will show what has been the current tradition in the East respecting Daniel, and is all that can now be known respecting the place of his death and burial. Benjamin of Tudela was a Jewish Rabbi of Spain, ́ who travelled through Europe, Asia, and Africa, from Spain to China, between A. D. 1160 and 1173. His Itinerary was first printed in 1543. It was a work in wide circulation in the 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries, and has been translated from the original Hebrew, into Latin, English, French, Dutch, and Jewish-German, and, in these languages has passed through not less than twenty-two editions. I quote from the London and Berlin edition of 1840. "Four miles from hence begins Khuzestan, Elam of Scripture, a large province which, however, is but partially inhabited, a portion of it lying in ruins. Among the latter are the remains of Shushan the Metropolis and palace of king Achashverosh, which still contains very large and handsome buildings of ancient date. Its seven thousand Jewish inhabitants possess fourteen synagogues; in front of one of which is the tomb of Daniel, who rests in peace. The river Ulai divides the parts of the city which are connected with a bridge; that portion of it which is inhabited by the Jews, contains the markets; to it all trade is confined, and there dwell all the rich; on the other side of the river they are poor, because they are deprived of the abovenamed advantages, and have even no gardens nor orchards. These circumstances gave rise to jealousy, which was fostered by the belief that all honour and riches originated from the possession of the remains of the prophet Daniel, who rests in peace, and who was

buried on their side. A request was made by the poor for permission to remove the sepulchre to the other side, but it was rejected; upon which a war arose and was carried on between the two parties for a length of time; this strife lasted until 'their souls became loath' (Num. xxi. 4, 5; Judg. xvi. 16.), and they came to a mutual agreement, by which it was stipulated that the coffin, which contained Daniel's bones, should be deposited alternately every year on either side. Both parties faithfully adhered to this arrangement, which was, however, interrupted by the interference of Sanjar Shah Ben Shah, who governs all Persia, and holds supreme power over forty-five of its kings.

"When this great emperor Sanjar, king of Persia, came to Shushan, and saw that the coffin of Daniel was removed from side to side, he crossed the bridge with a very numerous retinue, and accompanied by Jews and Mahometans, inquired into the nature of these proceedings. Upon being told what we have related above, he declared that it was derogatory to the honour of Daniel, and recommended that the distance between the two banks should be exactly measured, that Daniel's coffin should be deposited in another coffin, made of glass, and that it should be suspended from the very middle of the bridge, fastened by chains of iron. A place of public worship was erected on the very spot, open to every one who desired to say his prayers, whether he be Jew or Gentile, and the coffin of Daniel is suspended from the bridge unto this very day." Vol. i. Vol. i. pp. 117120.

This story, trifling as it is in some of its details, may be admitted as evidence of a tradition in the East, that Daniel died and was buried at Shushan. This tradition, moreover, is very ancient. In a Note on this passage (vol. ii. p. 152.) A. Asher, the publisher of the Itinerary of Benjamin says, "Aasim of Cufah, a venerable historian, who preceded Ibn Hankel by two hundred years, (for he died 735) mentions the discovery of Daniel's coffin at Sus. Ibn Hankel, who travelled in the tenth century, speaks of it, and ascribes to the possession of the bones of Daniel the virtue of dispelling all sorts of distress, particularly that of famine from want of rain." It has been a matter of much controversy whether the place now known as Chouck, Chouz, or Sous is the ancient Shushan (Lat. 31° 55', Long. 83°* 40′), or the place now called Shuster (Lat. 31° 30', Long. 84° 30'). The former opinion is maintained by Rennel, Ouseley, Barbié du Bocage, Kinneir, and Hoek; the latter by d'Herbe