arguments, which appear to us thoroughly wanting in real solidity, it will be better to exhibit afresh, in the shortest manner possible, the direct proofs of the usual system. For this end we will first explain the results of Scripture only, and then compare them with the most definite remains of external evidence, the Canon of Ptolemy, confirmed by the records of several eclipses, and the history of Herodotus and Xenophon, who both travelled to Babylon and the East, and of whom the former was almost an eye-witness from the reign of Hystaspes to that of the later Darius. The mist which has been thrown around this part of chronology in such learned profusion, will thus, as we hope, be almost entirely cleared

away.

First, let us learn from Scripture the real succession of reigns, from Jehoiakim to the close of the sacred Canon. In Jeremiah and 2 Kings, we find the two successive kings of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar and Evil Merodach. In the history of Daniel we have first the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, and afterwards that of Belshazzar, at whose death the kingdom is numbered and finished. Hence we have three names in order, Nebuchadnezzar, Evil Merodach, and Belshazzar. The same is confirmed by Jeremiah xxvii. 7 : "And all nations shall serve him (Nebuchadnezzar) and his son, and his son's son, until the very time of his land come: and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him." The time of the land, as the holy Daniel tells us, came at the death of Belshazzar, and he was therefore the son's son of Nebuchadnezzar. Evil Merodach then, was his son, and the order, so far, is consistent and certain.

In Daniel's history, again, the order of reigns is continued by Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian. Under the former the laws of the Medes and Persians were in force, and the dynasty was therefore changed. We have now five successions plainly defined, -Nebuchadnezzar, Evil Merodach, and Belshazzar, Babylonians; Darius the Mede, and Cyrus the Persian.

The latter part of the order is confirmed anew by Daniel's prophecies. These are evidently placed in order of time. And they are in the first and third years of Belshazzar, in the first of Darius, son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, and in the third of Cyrus. The words (vi. 28) imply that Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian reigned in direct succession. The order of the prophecies shews the same, for Dan. x.-xii. bears evident marks, besides its actual place in the book, that it was the latest vision. Hence Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, is only a fuller and more complete description of Darius the Mede, and all the evidence harmonizes together.

2 Kin. xxxvi. Jerem. Dan. i-vi.

1. Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar. 2. Evil Merodach

Jerem. xxvii.

Dan. vii-xii.

3. Belshazzar

his son.
his son's son

4. Darius the Mede

5. Cyrus the Persian

Belshazzar.

Darius of the seed

of the Medes. Cyrus, king of Persia

From Ezra, Nehemiah, and Haggai, we may continue the list. After Cyrus came Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, and Darius the builder of the temple; then another Artaxerxes, and after some interval Darius the Persian. In Dan. xi. we read of three kings after Cyrus, and a fourth richer than all, who should stir up all against the realm of Grecia. The prophecy then passes at once to Alexander the Great. It seems plain from the history that the reigns of Cyrus, Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, and the Darius of Zechariah, were strictly consecutive, but uncertain whether one or more reigns might not intervene between the Darius of Zechariah, and Artaxerxes Ezra vii., and between this last monarch aud Darius the Persian. Hence the final list will be as follows:

Thus all the indications are harmonious in these various histories of Scripture. It remains doubtful whether Artaxerxes were the fourth or some later king after Cyrus, and whether Darius the Persian followed next in order, or after some interval of time.

Let us next learn what light Scripture will supply on the length of their respective reigns. In Jeremiah we learn that the fourth of Jehoiakim was the first of Nebuchadnezzar. The identity implies that both were dated from the Nisan of the Jewish year. But Daniel was carried captive in the third of Jehoiakim. This might relate to the same time, reckoned from the actual accession, or the beginning of the Chaldean year, and would imply that the reign of Nebuchadnezzar in Jeremiah, began early in the spring. In the close of the eighth of Nebuchadnezzar, " at the return of

the year," ," Jeconiah was made captive. In the thirty-seventh of Jeconiah's captivity, in the twelfth month, or near its close, the reign of Evil Merodach began. Hence the whole reign of Nebuchadnezzar, as reckoned by Jeremiah, and in the book of Kings, would be nearly forty-five years.

Again, a period of seventy years is announced five times, 2 Chron. xxxvi., Isa. xxiii., Jer. xxv. 11, 12, xxix. 10, Dan. ix. 1, Zech. vii. 1—6. In Jer. xxv. its date seems plainly to be from the fourth of Jehoiakim, or the first of Nebuchadnezzar, and its close at the end of the Babylonish power. In Jer. xxix. it is explained to be seventy years of captivity at Babylon. In Dan. ix. we are taught that, in the first of Darius the Mede, it was either just expired, or very near its close. In Ezra i. 1, its close is fixed definitely to the decree in the first of Cyrus. Hence the reigns of Evil Merodach, Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, and any intermediate reign at Babylon, amounted only to twenty-five years. But from Zechariah we learn that seventy years were fulfilled from the burning of the temple to the fourth of the Persian Darius. Now the temple was burned in the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar, eighteen years from the earlier date of Daniel's captivity. Hence from the first of Cyrus to the fourth of Darius must be eighteen years, or the reigns of Cyrus, Ahasuerus, and Artaxerxes are together fifteen years only, of which three at least belong to Cyrus. (Dan. x. 1.)

Again, the reign of Darius the Mede was apparently very short. Seventy years expired with the first of Cyrus, Ezra i. 1, but they were at least nearly expired at the first of Darius, Dan. ix. 1. The same period is assigned to the nation's service of Babylon, and to the Jewish captivity at Babylon. The latter ended with Cyrus, and the former with the death of Belshazzar and accession of Darius. To complete the term, the service must be computed from a date rather earlier than the first of Nebuchadnezzar, and fourth of Jehoiakim. It could not be earlier than Jehoiakim's accession, who was appointed by the king of Egypt. Hence its earliest possible date would be the second of Jehoiakim; and if so, the reign of Darius would be only two years.

Again the captivity of Daniel was in the third year of Jehoiakim from his accession, or in the fourth, when reckoned, as in Kings and Jeremiah, from Nisan. This is called in Jeremiah the first of Nebuchadnezzar. But after three years, Daniel expounded the dream in the second of Nebuchadnezzar. Hence it would appear that the fourth of Nebuchadnezzar in the provinces was the second at Babylon, or that he was joint king, and ruled in the provinces two years before his father's death. Thus the series, with the certain or probable length of the reigns will be as follows:

Let us now examine the series of the Canon, as given by Ptolemy and Theon, and professedly confirmed by several eclipses which were recorded in such and such a year of the Babylonian and Persian kings. It will be as follows:

Here, in the reigns which form the hinge of the sacred history, there is a punctual and exact correspondence. The name of Nebuchadnezzar, and the length of his sole reign, precisely_agree. The rest of the Babylonian reigns in Scripture, with that of Darius, are twenty-five years. That of Darius, by a probable and nearly certain conjecture, was only two years. Accordingly the three reigns in the Canon are 2+4+17=23 years. The last reign, in Scripture, is not less than three years; in the Canon it satisfies that condition also. The name of Čyrus and Coresch corresponds, letter for letter, and both in Scripture and in the Canon, marks a change of dynasty, and the beginning of the Persian kings. The reigns from Cyrus to Darius are fifteen years in Scripture,-seventeen in the Canon. But if we deduct two years, which Scripture allows to the Mede, they exactly correspond. Darius has more than six years in Scripture, and thirty-six in the Canon; Artaxerxes more than thirty-three in Scripture, and forty in the Canon. In the twentieth of Artaxerxes, Eliashib was high priest, and three others followed until the reign of Darius the Persian. So from the twentieth of Artaxerxes Longimanus, A.c. 445, to the accession of Darius Codomannus, A.c. 336, are one hundred and eight years, which allows just thirty-six years for each generation. All the main features are therefore in strict harmony, between the Canon transmitted by the heathen astronomer, and the inspired

narrative of the word of God. Yet there are apparent differences, which quite forbid the idea of intentional accommodation. The Canon agrees also with the Greek historians in those reigns of which they were eye-witnesses, or nearly so, from Darius Hystaspes to the reign of Alexander. The name of Ilverodamus is another point of harmony, since it clearly answers to Evil Merodach.

Even the seeming differences will only serve to confirm the harmony, while they clear it from the suspicion of a collusive origin. The Canon inserts Neriglissar, and other writers, Laborosoarchod, for nine months, between Evil Merodach and Nabonadius. But the reign of a grandson, so quickly following that of the grandfather, might easily give room to one or two vice-reigns during his minority, and the words of Berosus and Megasthenes prove that Neriglissar came to power only through civil discord, and was himself closely allied to the royal family. The joint reign of Nebuchadnezzar, before Nabopolassar's death, is directly affirmed by Berosus. "When Nabopolassar, his father, heard that the governor, whom he had set over Egypt, Coele-Syria, and Phenice, had revolted, he determined to punish the delinquents, and entrusted part of his army to his son Nabuchodonosor, who was then of mature age, and sent him forth against the rebel. Nabuchodonosor, as soon as he received intelligence of his father's death, set in order the affairs of Egypt and other countries, committed to some of his faithful officers the captives he had taken from the Jews and Phenicians; and hastily crossed the desert to Babylon."

Again, the name and reign of Darius the Mede are wanting, both in the Canon, and in Herodotus. But this really is another secret coincidence. For that king, in Scripture, reigned after the fall of Babylon, and before the beginning of the kingdom of Persia. (Dan. v. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 20, 22.) It is therefore a direct contradiction to the sacred writers to identify him with any of the Persian kings in the Canon, and also with any of the Babylonian monarchs. His reign, we have shown with high probability from Scripture alone, was only two years. He was sixty-two years when he took the kingdom, and his reign was a short and transitory supremacy of the Medes, before the permanent dynasty of the Persians. Hence the prophet, in vision, saw the ram with two horns, of which the higher came up last, and this was explained to denote the kings of Media and Persia. So the Medes have precedence, Dan. vi. 8, 12, but always after this, the Persians (Ezra i. 1, 2; iii. 7; iv. 5, 24; vi. 14. Esth. i. 3.) Again, the fall of Babylon is decidedly ascribed to Cyrus, Isa. xlv., and yet to the joint power of the Medes and Persians, Isa. xiv. Jer. 1. It is plain, then, that this short reign of the Mede really answers to the two first years of