THE point of contact between sacred and profane chronology, and therefore the first certain date, in biblical history, is the accession of Nebuchadnezzar to the throne of Babylon (cf. Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1). From this date we reckon on to Christ and back to Adam. The agreement of leading chronologers is a sufficient guarantee that David began to reign in B.C. l056-5, and therefore that all dates subsequent to that event can be definitely fixed. But beyond this epoch, certainty vanishes.. The marginal dates of our English Bible represent: in the main Archbishop Ussher's chronology, [*] and notwithstanding his eminence as a chronologer some of these dates are doubtful, and others entirely wrong.
Of the doubtful dates in Ussher's scheme the reigns of Belshazzar and "Ahasuerus" may serve as examples. Belshazzar's case is specially interesting. Scripture plainly states that he was King of Babylon at its conquest by the Medo-Persians, and that he was slain the night Darius entered the city. On the other hand, not only does no ancient historian mention Belshazzar, but all agree that the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus, who was absent from the city when the Persians captured it, and who afterwards submitted to the conquerors at Borsippa. Thus the contradiction between history and Scripture appeared to be absolute. Skeptics appealed to history to discredit the book of Daniel; and commentators solved or shirked the difficulty by rejecting history. The cuneiform inscriptions, however, have now settled the controversy in a manner as satisfactory as it was unexpected. On clay cylinders discovered by Sir H. Rawlinson at Mughier and other Chaldean sites, Belshazzar (Belsaruzur) is named by Nabonidus as his eldest son. The inference is obvious, that during the latter years of his father's reign, Belshazzar was King-Regent in Babylon. According to Ptolemy's canon Nabonidus reigned seventeen years (from s. c. 555 to B.C. 538), and Ussher gives these years to Belshazzar.
In common with many other writers, Ussher has assumed that the King of the book of Esther was Darius Hystaspes, but it is now generally agreed that it is the son and successor of Darius who is there mentioned as Ahasuerus - "a name which orthographically corresponds with the Greek Xerxes." [1]
The great durbar of the first chapter of Esther, held in his third year (ver. 3), was presumably with a view to his expedition against Greece (B.C. 483); and the marriage of Esther was in his seventh year (2:16), having been delayed till then on account of his absence during the campaign. The marginal dates of the book of Esther should therefore begin with B.C. 486, instead of B.C. 521, as given in our English Bibles.
But these are comparatively trivial points, whereas the principal error of Ussher's chronology is of real importance. According to 1 Kings 6:1, Solomon began to build the Temple "in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt." The mystic character of this era of 480 years has been noticed in an earlier chapter. Ussher assumed that it represented a strictly chronological period, and reckoning back from the third year of Solomon, he fixed the date of the Exodus as B.C. 1491, - an error which vitiates his entire system.
Acts 13:18-21, St. Paul, in treating of the interval between the Exodus and the end of Saul's reign, specifies three several periods; viz., 40 years, about 450 years, and 40 years = 530 years. From the accession of David to the third year of Solomon, when the temple was founded, was forty-three years. According to this enumeration therefore, the period between the Exodus and the temple was 530 + 43 years = 573 years. Clinton, however, whose chronology has been very generally adopted, conjectures that there was an interval of twenty-seven years between the death of Moses and the first servitude, and an interval of twelve years between "Samuel the prophet" (1 Samuel 7) and the election of Saul. Accordingly he estimates the period between the Exodus and the temple as 573 + 27 + 12 years = 612 years. [2]
Clinton's leading dates, therefore, are as follows:--
In this chronology Browne proposes three corrections (Ordo Sec., Ch. 10, 13); viz., he rejects the two conjectural terms of twenty-seven years and twelve years above noticed; and he adds two years to the period between the Deluge and the Exodus. If this last correction be adopted (and it is perfectly legitimate, considering that approximate accuracy is all that the ablest chronologer can claim to have attained for this era), let three years be added to the period between the Deluge and the Covenant with Abraham, and the latter event becomes exactly, as it is in any case approximately, the central epoch between the Creation and the Crucifixion. The date of the Deluge will thus be put back to B.C. 2485, and therefore the Creation will be B.C. 4141.
The following most striking features appear in the chronology as thus settled:--
The Covenant here mentioned is that recorded in Genesis 12 in connection with the call of Abraham. The statements of Scripture relating to this part of the chronology may seem to need explanation in two respects.
Stephen declares in Acts 7:4 that Abraham's removal from Haran (or Charran) took place after the death of his father. But Abraham was only seventy-five years of age when he entered Canaan; whereas if we assume from Genesis 11:26 that Abraham was born when Terah was but seventy, he must have been one hundred and thirty at the call, for Terah died at two hundred and five. (Compare Genesis 11:26, 31, 32; 12:4.) The fact however is obvious from these statement that though named first among the sons of Terah, Abraham was not the firstborn, but the youngest: Terah was seventy when his eldest son was born, and he had three sons, Haran, Nahor, and Abraham. To ascertain his age at Abraham's birth we must needs turn to the history, and there we learn it was one hundred and thirty years. [4] And this will account for the deference Abraham paid to Lot, who, though his nephew, was nevertheless his equal in years, possibly his senior; and moreover, as the son of Abraham's eldest brother, the nominal head of the family. (Genesis 13:8, 9.)
Again. According to Exodus 12:40 "the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years." If this be taken to mean (as the statement in Genesis 15:13, quoted by Stephen in Acts 7:6, might also seem to imply) that the Israelites were four centuries in Egypt, the entire chronology must be changed. But, as St. Paul explains in Galatians 3:17, these 430 years are to be computed from the call of Abraham, and not from the going down of Israel into Egypt. The statement in Genesis 15:13 is explained and qualified by the words which follow in ver. 16. The entire period of Israel's wanderings was to be four centuries, but when the passage speaks definitely of their sojourn in Egypt it says' "In the fourth generation they shall come hither again" - a word which was accurately fulfilled, for Moses was the fourth in descent from Jacob. [5]
It was not till 470 years after the covenant with Abraham that his descendants took their place as one of the nations of the earth. They were slaves in Egypt, and in the wilderness they were wanderers; but under Joshua they entered the land of promise and became a nation. And with this last event begins a series of cycles of "seventy weeks" of years.
Again the period Between the dedication of the first temple in the eleventh year of Solomon (B.C. 1066-5) and the dedication of the second temple in the sixth year of Darius Hystaspes of Persia (B.C. 515), was 490 years. [6]
Are we to conclude that these results are purely accidental? No thoughtful person will hesitate to accept the more reasonable alternative that the chronology of the world is part of a Divine plan or "economy of times and seasons."
The chronological inquiry suggested by the data afforded by the books of 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, is of principal importance, not only as establishing the absolute accuracy of Scripture, but also because it throws light upon the main question of the several eras of the captivity, which again are closely allied with the era of the seventy weeks.
The student of the book of Daniel finds every step beset with difficulties, raised either by avowed enemies, or quasi expositors of Holy Writ. Even the opening statement of the book has been assailed on all sides. That Daniel was made captive in the third year of Jehoiakim "is simply an invention of late Christian days," declares the author of Messiah the Prince (p. 42), in keeping with the style in which this writer disposes of history sacred and profane, in order to support his own theories.
In Dean Milman's History of the Jews, the page which treats of this epoch is full of inaccuracies. First he confounds the seventy years of the desolations, predicted in Jeremiah 25., with the seventy years of the servitude, which had already begun. Then as the prophecy of Jeremiah 25: was given in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, he fixes the first capture of Jerusalem in that year, whereas Scripture expressly states it took place in Jehoiakim's third year (Daniel 1:1). He proceeds to specify B.C. 601 as the year of Nebuchadnezzar's invasion; and here the confusion is hopeless, as he mentions two periods of three years each between that date and the king's death, which nevertheless he rightly assigns to the year B.C. 598.
Again, Dr. F. W. Newman's article on the Captivities, in Kitto's Cyclopaedia, well deserves notice as a specimen of the kind of criticism to be found in standard books ostensibly designed to aid the study of Scripture.
"The statement with which the book of Daniel opens is" (he maintains) "in direct collision with the books of Kings and Chronicles, which assign to Jehoiakim an eleven years' reign, as also with Jeremiah 25:1. It partially rests on 2 Chronicles 36:6, which is itself not in perfect accordance with 2 Kings 24. In the earlier history the war broke out during the reign of Jehoiakim, who died before its close; and when his son and successor Jehoiachin had reigned three months, the city and its king were captured. But in the Chronicles the same event is made to happen twice over at an interval of three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:6 and 9); and even so we do not obtain accordance with the received interpretation of Daniel 1:1-3."
This writer's conclusions are adopted by Dean Stanley in his Jewish Church (vol. 2., p. 459), wherein he enumerates among the captives taken with Jehoiachin in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, the prophet Daniel, who had gained a position at the court of Babylon six years before Jehoiachin came to the throne! (Compare 2 Kings 24:12 with Daniel 2:1.)
A reference to the Five Great Monarchies (vol. 3., pp. 488-494), and the Fasti Hellenici, will show how thoroughly consistent the sacred history of this period appears to the mind of a historian or a chronologer; and moreover how completely it harmonizes with the extant fragments of the history of Berosus.
Jehoiakim did in fact reign eleven years. In his third year he became the vassal of the King of Babylon. For three years he paid tribute, and in his sixth year he revolted. There is not a shadow of reason for believing that the first verse of Daniel is spurious; and apart from all claim to Divine sanction for the book, the idea that such a writer - a man of princely rank and of the highest culture, (Daniel 1:3, 4.) and raised to the foremost place among the wise and noble of Babylonia - was ignorant of the date and circumstances of his own exile, is simply preposterous. But according to Dr. Newman, he needed to refer to the book of Chronicles for the information, and was deceived thereby! A comparison of the statements in Kings, Chronicles, and Daniel clearly establishes that the narratives are independent, each giving details omitted in the other books. The second verse of Daniel appears inconsistent with the rest only to a mind capable of supposing that the living king of Judah was placed as an ornament in the temple of Belus along with the holy vessels; for so Dr. Newman has read it. And the apparent inconsistency in 2 Chronicles 36:6 disappears when read with the context, for the eighth verse shows the writer's knowledge that Jehoiakim completed his reign in Jerusalem. Moreover the correctness of the entire history is signally established by fixing the chronology of the events, a crucial test of accuracy.
Jerusalem was first taken by the Chaldeans in the third year of Jehoiakim (Daniel 1:1). His fourth year was current with the first of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:1). This accords with the deft, the statement of Berosus that Nebuchadnezzar's first expedition took place before his actual accession (Jos., Apion, 1. 19). According to the canon of Ptolemy, the accuracy of which has been fully established, the reign of Nebuchadnezzar dates from B.C. 604, i.e., his accession was in the year beginning the first Thoth (which fell in January) B.C. 604, and the history leaves no doubt it was early in that year. But the captivity, according to the era of Ezekiel, began in Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year (comp. Ezekiel 1:2 and 2 Kings 24:12); and in the thirty-seventh year of the captivity, Nebuchadnezzar's successor was on the throne (2 Kings 25:27). This would give Nebuchadnezzar a reign of at least: forty-four years, whereas according to the Canon (and Berosus confirms it) he reigned only forty-three years, and was succeeded by Evil-Merodach (the Iluoradam of the Canon), in B.C. 561.
It follows therefore that Scripture antedates the years of Nebuchadnezzar, computing his reign from B.C. 605. [7] This would be sufficiently accounted for by the fact that, from the conquest of Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, the Jews acknowledged Nebuchadnezzar as their suzerain. It has been overlooked, however, that it is in accordance with the ordinary principle on which they reckoned regnal years, computing them from Nisan to Nisan. In B.C. 604 the 1st Nisan fell on or about the 1st April, [8] and according to Jewish reckoning, the King's second year would begin on that day, no matter how recently he had ascended the throne. Therefore "the fourth year of Jehoiakim that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar" (Jeremiah 25:1), was the year beginning Nisan B.C. 605; and the third of Jehoiakim, in which Jerusalem was taken and the servitude began, was the year beginning Nisan B.C. 606.
This result is most remarkably confirmed by Clinton, who fixes the summer of B.C. 606 as the date of Nebuchadnezzar's first expedition. [9]
It is further confirmed by, and affords the explanation of a statement of Daniel, which has been triumphantly appealed to in depreciation of the value of his book. If, it is urged, the King of Babylon kept Daniel three years in training before admitting him to his presence, how could the prophet have interpreted the King's dream in his second year? (Daniel 1:5, 18; 2:1). Daniel, a citizen of Babylon, and a courtier withal, naturally and of course computed his sovereign's reign according to the common era in use around him (as Nehemiah afterwards did in like circumstances.) But as the prophet was exiled in B.C. 606, his three years' probation terminated at the close of B.C. 603, whereas the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, computed from his actual accession, extended to some date in the early months of B.C. 602.
Again. The epoch of Jehoiachin's captivity was in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24:12), i.e., his eighth year as reckoned from Nisan.
But the ninth year of the captivity was still current on the tenth Tebeth in the ninth year of Zedekiah and seventeenth of Nebuchadnezzar (comp. Ezekiel 24:1, 2, with 2 Kings 25:1-8).
And the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar and eleventh of Zedekiah, in which Jerusalem was destroyed, was in part concurrent with the twelfth year of the captivity (comp. 2 Kings 25:2-8 with Ezekiel 33:21).
It follows therefore that Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) must have been taken at the close of the Jewish year ("when the year was expired," 2 Chronicles 36:10), that is the year preceding 1st Nisan, B.C. 597; and Zedekiah was made king (after a brief interregnum) early in the year beginning on that day. [10] And it also follows that whether computed according to the era of Nebuchadnezzar, of Zedekiah, or of the captivity, B.C. 587 was the year in which "the city was smitten." [11]
The first link in this chain of dates is the third year of Jehoiakim, and every new link confirms the proof of the correctness and importance of that date. It has been justly termed the point of contact between sacred and profane history; and its importance in the sacred chronology is immense on account of its being the epoch of the servitude of Judah to the King of Babylon.
The servitude must not be confounded with the captivity, as it generally is. It was rebellion against the Divine decree which entrusted the imperial scepter to Nebuchadnezzar, that brought on the Jews the further judgment of a national deportation, and the still more terrible chastisement of the "desolations." The language of Jeremiah is most definite in this respect. "I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, my servant." "The nation which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand." But the nations that bring their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him, those will I let remain still in their own land, saith the Lord, and they shall till it and dwell therein" (Jeremiah 27:6, 8 11; and comp. chap.38:17-21).
The appointed era of this servitude was seventy years, and the twenty-ninth chapter of Jeremiah was a message of hope to the captivity, that at the expiration of that period they should return to Jerusalem (ver. 10). The twenty-fifth chapter, oil the oilier hand, was a prediction for the rebellious Jews who remained in Jerusalem after the servitude had commenced, warning them that their stubborn disobedience would bring on them utter destruction, and that for seventy years the whole land should be "a desolation."
To recapitulate. The thirty-seventh year of the captivity was current on the accession of Evil-Merodach (2 Kings 25:27), and the epoch of that king's reign was B.C. 561. Therefore the captivity dated from the year beginning Nisan 598 and ending Adar 597. But this was the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar according to Scripture reckoning. Therefore his first year was Nisan 605 to Nisan 604. The first capture of Jerusalem and the beginning of the servitude was during the preceding year, 606-605. The final destruction of the city was in Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year, i.e., 587, and the siege began 10th Tebeth (or about 25th December), 589, which was the epoch of the desolations. The burning of Jerusalem cannot have been B.C. 588, as given by Ussher, Prideaux, etc., for in that case [12] the captivity would have begun B.C. 599, and the thirty-seventh year would have ended before the accession of Evil-Merodach. Nor can it have been B.C. 586, as given by Jackson, Hales, etc., for then the thirty-seventh year would not have begun during Evil-Merodach's first year. [13]
This scheme is practically the same as Clinton's, [14] and the sanction of his name may be claimed for it, for it differs from his only in that he dates Jehoiakim's reign from August B.C. 609, and Zedekiah's from June B.C. 598, his attention not having been called to the Jewish practice of computing reigns from Nisan; whereas I have fixed Nisan B.C. 608 as the epoch of Jehoiakim's reign, and Nisan B.C. 597 for Zedekiah's. Not of course that Nisan was in fact the month-date of the accession, but that, according to the rule of the Mishna and the practice of the nation, the reign was so reckoned. Jehoiakim's date could not be Nisan B.C. 609, because his fourth year was also the first of Nebuchadnezzar, and the thirty-seventh year, reckoned from the eighth of Nebuchadnezzar, was the first of Evil-Merodach, i.e., B.C. 561, which date fixes the whole chronology as Clinton himself conclusively argues. [15] It follows from this also that: Zedekiah's date must be B.C. 597, and not 598.
The chronology adopted by Dr. Pusey [16] is essentially the same as Clinton's. The scheme here proposed differs from it only to the extent and on the grounds above indicated. His suggestion: that the fast proclaimed in the fifth year of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 36:9.) referred to the capture of Jerusalem in his third year, is not improbable, and points to Chisleu (Nov.) B.C. 606 as the date of that event. For the reasons above stated, it could not have been B.C. 607, as Dr. Pusey supposes, and the same argument proves that Canon Rawlinson's date for Nebuchadnezzar's expedition (B.C. 605) is a year too late. [17]
The correctness of this scheme will, I presume, be admitted, as regards the cardinal point of difference between it and Clinton's chronology, namely, that the reigns of the Jewish kings are reckoned from Nisan. It remains to notice the points of difference between the results here offered and Browne's hypotheses (Orda Saec., Ch. 162-169). He arbitrarily assumes that Jehoiachin's captivity and Zedekiah's reign began on the same day. This leads him to assume further (1) that they were reckoned from the same day, viz., the 1st Nisan, and (2) that Nebuchadnezzar's royal years dated from some date between 1st Nisan and 10 Ab 606 (Ch. 166). Both these positions are untenable. (1) The Jews certainly reckoned the reigns of their kings from 1st Nisan, but there is no proof that they so reckoned the years of ordinary periods or eras such as the captivity. (2) The presumption is strong, confirmed by all the synchronisms of the chronology, that they computed Nebuchadnezzar's royal era either according to the Chaldean reckoning, as in Daniel, or according to their own system, as in the other books.
The following table will show at a glance the several eras of the servitude to Babylon, king Jehoiachin's captivity, and the desolations of Jerusalem.
In using the table it is essential to bear in mind two points already stated.
If these points be kept in view the chronology of the table will be found to harmonize every chronological statement relating to the period embraced in it, contained in the Books of Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel.
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLEFrom the servitude to Babylon to the dedication of the second temple. |
||||||
| Jewish Year* | Kings of Babylon | Kings of Judah | Era of the Servitude | Era of the Captivity | Era of the Desolations | Events and Remarks |
|
B.C. 606 |
20th year of Nabopolassar | 3rd year of Jehoiakim (Eliakim) | 1 | - | - | The 3rd year of Jehoiakim, from 1st Nisan, 606, to 1st Nisan, 605. Jerusalemtaken by Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. i. 1, 2), see p. 231, ante. With this event the servitude to Babylon began, 490 years (or 70 weeks of years) after the establishment of the Kingdom under Saul. "The 4th year of Jehoiakim, that was the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar," i.e., the year beginning 1st Nisan, 605 (Jer. xxv. 1). |
| 605 |
Nebuchad nezzar |
4 | 2 | - | - | |
| 604 | 2 | 5 | 3 | - | - | Vision of the great image (Dan. ii). |
| 603 | 3 | 6 | 4 | - | - | - |
| 602 | 4 | 7 | 5 | - | - | - |
| 601 | 5 | 8 | 6 | - | - | - |
| 600 | 6 | 9 | 7 | - | - | - |
| 599 | 7 | 10 | 8 | - | - | - |
| 598 | 8 | 11 | 9 | 1 | - | This year included the 3 months' reign of Jehoiachin (Jeconiah), whose captivity began in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxiv. 12, see pp. 234, 236, ante). |
| 3 months of Jehoiachin | ||||||
| 597 | 9 | Zedekiah | 10 | 2 | - | Reigned 11 years (2 Kings xxiv. 18). |
| 596 | 10 | 2 | 11 | 3 | - | - |
| 595 | 11 | 3 | 12 | 4 | - | - |
| 594 | 12 | 4 | 13 | 5 | - | Ezekiel began to prophesy in the 30th year from Josiah's Passover (2 Kings xxiii. 23), and the 5th year of the captivity (Ezek. i. 1,2.) |
| 593 | 13 | 5 | 14 | 6 | - | - |
| 592 | 14 | 6 | 15 | 7 | - | - |
| 591 | 15 | 7 | 16 | 8 | - | - |
| 590 | 16 | 8 | 17 | 9 | - | - |
| 589 | 17 | 9 | 18 | 10 | 1 | Jerusalem invested for the third time by Nebuchadnezzar, on the 10th day of Tebeth-- "the fast of Tebeth,"-- the epoch of the "Desolations" (see pp. 69, 70, ante). |
| 588 | 18 | 10 | 19 | 11 | 2 | "The 10th year of Zedekiah, which was the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar" (Jer. xxxii. 1). |
| 587 | 19 | 11 | 20 | 12 | 3 | Jerusalem taken on the 9th day of the 4th month, and burnt on the 7th day of the 5th month in the 11th year of Zedekiah, and the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxv. 2,3,8,9, see p. 234, ante), called "The 12th year of our Captivity" in Ezek. xxxiii. 21, the news having reached the exiles on the 5th day of the 10th month. |
| 586 | 20 | - | 21 | 13 | 4 | - |
| 585 | 21 | - | 22 | 14 | 5 | - |
| 584 | 22 | - | 23 | 15 | 6 | - |
| 583 | 23 | - | 24 | 16 | 7 | - |
| 582 | 24 | - | 25 | 17 | 8 | - |
| 581 | 25 | - | 26 | 18 | 9 | - |
| 580 | 26 | - | 27 | 19 | 10 | - |
| 579 | 27 | 28 | 20 | 11 | - | - |
| 578 | 28 | 29 | 21 | 12 | - | - |
| 577 | 29 | 30 | 22 | 13 | - | - |
| 576 | 30 | 31 | 23 | 14 | - | - |
| 575 | 31 | 32 | 24 | 15 | - | - |
| 574 | 32 | 33 | 25 | 16 | - | The 25th year of the Captivity was the 14th (inclusive, as the Jews usually reckoned) from the destruction of Jerusalem (Ezek. xl. 1). |
| 573 | 33 | 34 | 26 | 17 | - | - |
| 572 | 34 | 35 | 27 | 18 | - | - |
| 571 | 35 | 36 | 28 | 19 | - | - |
| 570 | 36 | 37 | 29 | 20 | - | - |
| 569 | 37 | 38 | 30 | 21 | - | - |
| 568 | 38 | 39 | 31 | 22 | - | - |
| 567 | 39 | 40 | 32 | 23 | - | - |
| 566 | 40 | 41 | 33 | 24 | - | - |
| 565 | 41 | 42 | 34 | 25 | - | - |
| 564 | 42 | 43 | 35 | 26 | - | - |
| 563 | 43 | 44 | 36 | 27 | - | - |
| 562 | 44 | 45 | 37 | 28 | - | According to the Canon, the accession of Iluoradam (Evil-Merodach) was in the year beginning 1st Thoth (11th Jan.) B.C. 561, (see p. 232, ante). But the year 562 in this table is the Jewish year, i.e., the year preceding 1st Nisan (or about 5th April 561, and the 37th year of Jehoiachin's captivity was current till towards the close of that year. In this year Jehoiachin was "brought forth out of prison." (Jer. lii. 31). |
| 561 | Evil-Merodach | 46 | 38 | 29 | - | - |
| 560 | 2 | 47 | 39 | 30 | - | - |
| 559 | Neriglissar or Nergalsherezer | 48 | 40 | 31 | - | - |
| 558 | 2 | - | 49 | 41 | 32 | - |
| 557 | 3 | - | 50 | 42 | 33 | - |
| 556 | 4 | - | 51 | 43 | 34 | - |
| 555 | Nabonidus | - | 52 | 44 | 35 | The Nabonadius of the Canon is called Nabunnahit in the Inscriptions, and Labynetus by Herodotus. |
| 554 | 2 | - | 53 | 45 | 36 | - |
| 553 | 3 | - | 54 | 46 | 37 | - |
| 552 | 4 | - | 55 | 47 | 38 | - |
| 551 | 5 | - | 56 | 48 | 39 | - |
| 550 | 6 | - | 57 | 49 | 40 | - |
| 549 | 7 | - | 58 | 50 | 41 | - |
| 548 | 8 | - | 59 | 51 | 42 | - |
| 547 | 9 | - | 60 | 52 | 43 | - |
| 546 | 10 | - | 61 | 53 | 44 | - |
| 545 | 11 | - | 62 | 54 | 45 | - |
| 544 | 12 | - | 63 | 55 | 46 | - |
| 543 | 13 | - | 64 | 56 | 47 | - |
| 542 | 14 | - | 65 | 57 | 48 | - |
| 541 | 15 | - | 66 | 58 | 49 | In or before this year, Belshazzar (the Belsaruzur of the Inscriptions) became regent in the lifetime of his father, Nabonadius. Daniel's vision of the Four Beasts was in the 1st year, and his vision of the Ram and the Goat was in the 3rd year of Belshazzar (Dan. vii., viii.). |
| 540 | 16 | - | 67 | 59 | 50 | - |
| 539 | 17 | - | 68 | 60 | 51 | - |
| 538 | Darius (the Mede) | - | 69 | 61 | 52 | Babylon taken by Cyrus. Daniel's vision of the 70 weeks was in this year. |
| 537 | 2 | - | 70 | 62 | 53 | - |
| 536 | Cyrus | - | - | - | 54 | Decree of Cyrus authorizing the Jews to return to Jerusalem: end of the Servitude. (N.B. The 70th year of the Servitude was current till the 1st Nisan, 536.) |
| 535 | 2 | - | - | - | 55 | - |
| 534 | 3 | - | - | - | 56 | Year of Daniel's last vision (Dan. x.-xii.). |
| 533 | 4 | - | - | - | 57 | - |
| 532 | 5 | - | - | - | 58 | - |
| 531 | 6 | - | - | - | 59 | - |
| 530 | 7 | - | - | - | 60 | - |
| 529 | Cambyses | - | - | - | 61 | - |
| 528 | 2 | - | - | - | 62 | - |
| 527 | 3 | - | - | - | 63 | - |
| 526 | 4 | - | - | - | 64 | - |
| 525 | 5 | - | - | - | 65 | - |
| 524 | 6 | - | - | - | 66 | - |
| 523 | 7 | - | - | - | 67 | - |
| 522 | 8 | - | - | - | 68 | - |
| 521 | Darius I | - | - | - | 69 | Darius Hystaspes (p. 57, ante). |
| 520 | 2 | - | - | - | 70 | End of the Desolations. The foundation of the Second Temple was laid on the 24th day of the 9th month in the 2nd year of Darius (Hag. ii. 18, see p. 70, ante). |
| 519 | 3 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 518 | 4 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 517 | 5 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 516 | 6 | - | - | - | - | The Temple was finished on the 3rd day of Adar in the 6th year of Darius (Ezra vi. 15). |
| 515 | 7 | - | - | - | - | The Temple was dedicated at the Passover in Nisan 515 (Ezra vi. 15-22), 490 years after the dedication of Solomon's temple (B.C. 1005), and 70 years before the date of the edict to build the city (see p. 66, ante). |
SHOWING THAT THE CALL OF ABRAHAM WAS THE CENTRAL POINT BETWEEN THE CREATION AND THE CRUCIFIXION
| BC | ||
| 4141* Adam - The Creation | ||
| to | = 1656 yrs | |
| 2485* Noah - The Flood | + | = 2086 yrs |
| to | = 430 yrs | |
| 2055 Abraham - The Covenant** | ||
| to | = 430 yrs | |
| 1625 Moses - The Law | + | = 2086 yrs |
| to | = 1656 yrs | |
| AD 32*** Christ - The Crucifixion |
the key--
* These dates differ from Clinton's chronology by three years. See p. 223, ante.
** Galatians 3:17 "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."
*** See pp. 97 and 122, ante.
Full information on the subject of the present "Hebrew Calendar" will be found in an article so entitled in Encyc. Brit. (9th ed.), and also in Lindo's Jewish Calendar, a Jewish work. The Mishna is the earliest work relating to it.
[*] Bishop Lloyd, to whom was entrusted the task of editing the A. V., in this respect made a few alterations, as ex. gr., in the book of Nehemiah he rejected Ussher's chronology, and inserted the true historical date of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus.
[1] Rawlinson's Herodotus, 4., p. 212. Xerxes (old Persian Khshayarsha) is derived by Sir H. Rawlinson from Khshaya, 'a King'" (Ibid. 3., 446, App. Book 6. note A).
[2] Josephus appears to confirm this in Ant. 20:10 Ch. 1, where he specifies 612 years between the Exodus and the temple, but in Ant. 8:3 Ch. 1, he fixes the same period at 592 years. It is supposed that in the longer era he included the twenty years during which both the temple and the palace were building.
[3] Cf. Browne Ordo Saec. Ch. 13. His system, however, compels him to specify the destruction of Jerusalem (A. D. 70) as the close of the Mosaic economy, which is certainly wrong. The crucifixion was the great crisis in the history of Judah and of the world.
[4] Clinton, F. H., vol. 1., p. 299. Alford's supercilious comments on this (Gr. Test., Acts 7:4) could be easily disposed of were the occasion opportune for the discussion this would involve. Indeed a passing reference to Genesis 25:1, 2, would have modified his statements.
[5] His mother was a daughter of Levi (Exodus 2:1).
[6] It is a remarkable coincidence that the era of the second temple was so nearly this same period of 490 years, B. C. 515 to about B. C. 18 when Herod rebuilt it.
[7] Clinton, F. H., vol. 1., p. 367.
[8] The Paschal new moon, in B. C. 604, was on the 31st of March.
[9] F. H., vol. 1., p. 328.
[10] This is confirmed by Ezekiel 40:1, compared with 2 Kings 25:8, for the twenty-fifth year of the captivity was the fourteenth year after the destruction of Jerusalem (viz., the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar), reckoned inclusively according to the ordinary practice of the Jews.
[11] These results will appear at a glance by reference to the table appended.
[12] As this event was in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:8), and the captivity began in his eighth year (2 Kings 24:12).
[13] Clinton, F. H.. , vol. 1., p. 319.
[14] Ibid., pp. 328-329.
[15] Fasti H., vol. 1., p. 319.
[16] Daniel, p. 401.
[17] Five Great Mon., 4. 488.
[18] Treatise, Rosh Hashanah, 1. 1.
[19] These dates are Clinton's, subject to remarks in App. 1., ante. They are selected mainly to throw light on Daniel's visions. The names of historians, etc., are introduced in the fifth century B. C. to indicate the character of the age in which the prophetic era of the seventy weeks began.
So thorough is the unanimity with which the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah is now admitted to be Longimanus, that it is no longer necessary to offer proof of it. Josephus indeed attributes these events to Xerxes, but his history of the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes is so hopelessly in error as to be utterly worthless. In fact he transposes the events of these respective reigns (see, Ant. 11., caps 5: and 7.) Nehemiah's master reigned not less than thirty-two years (Nehemiah 13:6); and his reign was subsequent to that of Darius Hystaspes (comp. Ezra 6:1 and 7:1), and prior to that of Darius Nothus (Nehemiah 12:22). He must, therefore, be either Longimanus or Mnemon, for no other king after Darius Hystaspes reigned thirty-two years, and it is certain Nehemiah's mission was not so late as the twentieth of Artaxerxes Mnemon, viz., B.C. 385.
This appears, first, from the general tenor of the history; second, because this date is later than that of Malachi, whose prophecy must have been considerably later than the time of Nehemiah; and third, because Eliashib, who was high priest when Nehemiah came to Jerusalem, was grandson of Jeshua, who was high priest in the first year of Cyrus (Nehemiah 3:1; 12:10; Ezra 2:2; 3:2); and from the first year of Cyrus (B.C. 536), to the twentieth of Artaxerxes Longimanus (B.C. 445), was ninety-one years, leaving room for precisely three generations. [1]
Moreover, the eleventh chapter of Daniel, if read aright, affords conclusive proof that the prophetic era dated from the time of Longimanus. The second verse is generally interpreted as though it were but a disconnected fragment of history, leaving a gap of over 130 years between it and the third verse, whereas the chapter is a consecutive prediction of events within the period of the seventy weeks. There were to be yet (i.e., after the issuing of the decree to build Jerusalem) "three kings in Persia." These were Darius Nothus (mentioned in Nehemiah 12:22), Artaxerxes Mnemon, and Ochus; the brief reigns of Xerxes II., Sogdianus, and Arogus being overlooked as being, what in fact they were, utterly unimportant. and indeed two of them are omitted in the Canon of Ptolemy. "The fourth" (and last) king was Darius Codomanus, whose fabulous wealth - the accumulated horde of two centuries - attracted the cupidity of the Greeks. What sums of money Alexander found in Susa is unknown, but the silver ingots and Hermione purple he seized after the battle of Arbela were worth over [2] £ 20, 000, 000. Verse 2 thus reaches to the close of the Persian Empire; verse 3 predicts the rise of Alexander the Great; and verse 4 refers to the division of his kingdom among his four generals.
According to Clinton (F. H., vol. 2., p. 380) the death of Xerxes was in July B.C. 465, and the accession of Artaxerxes was in February B.C. 464. Artaxerxes of course ignored the usurper's reign, which intervened, and reckoned his own reign from the day of his father's death. Again, of course, Nehemiah, being an officer of the court, followed the same reckoning. Had he computed his master's reign from February 464, Chisleu and Nisan could not have fallen in the same regnal year (Nehemiah 1:1; 2:1). No more could they, had be, according to the Jewish practice, computed it from Nisan.
Dr. Pusey here remarks, [3]
"The accession of Artaxerxes after the seven months of the assassin Artabanus would fall in the middle of 464. For it is clear from the sequel of the months in Nehemiah 1:2., and Ezra 7:7- 9, that Chisleu fell earlier in the year of his reign than Nisan, and Nisan than Ab. Then the reign of Artaxerxes must have begun between Ab and Chisleu B.C. 464."
This is altogether a mistake. As already mentioned, Chisleu and Nisan fell in the same regnal year; and so also did Nisan and the first day of Ab (Ezra 7:8, 9). But the 1st Ab of B.C. 459 (the seventh year of Artaxerxes) fell on or about the 16th July, and therefore the passages quoted are perfectly consistent with the received chronology, and serve merely to enable us to fix the dates more accurately still, and to decide that the death of Xerxes and the epoch of the reign of Artaxerxes should be assigned to the latter part of July B.C. 465.
Those who are not versed in what writers on prophecy have written on this subject, will be surprised to learn that this date is assailed as being nine years too late. All chronologers are agreed that Xerxes began to reign in B.C. 485, and that the death of Artaxerxes was in B.C. 423; and so far as I know, no writer of repute, unbiased by prophetic study, assigns as the epoch of the latter king's reign any other date than B.C. 465 [4] (or 464; see ante). This is the date according to the Canon of Ptolemy, which has been followed by all historians; and it is confirmed by the independent testimony of Julius Africanus, who, in his Chronagraphy, [5] describes the twentieth year of Artaxerxes as the 115th year of the Persian Empire [reckoned from Cyrus, B.C. 559] and the fourth year of the eighty-third Olympiad. This fixes B.C. 464 as the first year of that king, as it was in fact the year of his actual accession.
It was Archbishop Ussher who first raised a doubt upon the point. Lecturing on "Daniel's Seventies" [6] in Trinity College, Dublin, in the year 1613, difficulties connected with his subject suggested an inquiry which led him ultimately to put back the reign of Longimanus to B.C. 474, which is the date given in his Annales Vet. Test. The same date was afterwards adopted by Vitringa, and a century later by Kruger. But Hengstenberg is regarded as the champion of this view, and the treatise thereon in his Chronology [7] omits nothing that can be urged in its favor.
The objections raised to the received chronology depend mainly on the statement of Thucydides, that Artaxerxes was on the throne when Themistocles reached the Persian Court; for it is urged that the flight of Themistocles could not have been so late as B.C. 464. [8] But, as Dr. Pusey remarks, t "they have not made any impression on our English writers who have treated of Grecian history." [9] In common with the German writers, Dr. Pusey ignores Ussher altogether in the controversy, though Dr. Tregelles [10] . rightly claims for him the foremost place for scholarship among those who have advocated the earlier date. The apparent difficulty of making the prophecy and the chronology agree has led Dr. Pusey, following Prideaux, in opposition to Scripture, to fix the seventh year of Artaxerxes as the epoch of the seventy weeks, while it induced Dr. Tregelles [11] sheltering behind Ussher's name, to adopt the B.C. 455 date for the twentieth year of that king's reign. Bishop Lloyd when affixing Ussher's dates to our English Bible reverted to the received chronology when dealing with the book of Nehemiah.
It is unnecessary to enter here upon a discussion of this question. Nothing short of a reproduction of the entire argument in favor of the new chronology would satisfy its advocates; and for my present purpose it is a sufficient answer to that argument, that although everything has been urged which ingenuity and erudition can suggest in support of it, it has been rejected by all secular writers. Unfulfilled prophecy is only for the believer, but prophecy fulfilled has a voice for all. It is fortunate, therefore, that the proof of the fulfillment of this prophecy of the seventy weeks does not depend on an elaborate disquisition, like that of Hengstenberg's, to disturb the received chronologies.
One point only I will notice. It is urged in favor of limiting the reign of Xerxes to eleven years, that no event is mentioned in connection with his reign after his eleventh year. The answer is obvious: first, that it is to Greek historians, writing after his time, that we are mainly indebted for our knowledge of Persian history; and secondly, the battles of Thermopylae and Salamis may well have induced a king of the temperament and character of Xerxes to give himself up to a life of indolent ease and sensual enjoyment.
But further, the twelfth year of Xerxes is expressly mentioned in the book of Esther (3:7), and the narrative proves that his reign continued to the twelfth (Jewish) month of his thirteenth year. [12] Hengstenberg answers this by asserting that it was customary with Hebrew writers to include in a regnal era the years of a co-regency where it existed, and he appeals to the case of Nebuchadnezzar as a proof of such a custom. [13] If Nebuchadnezzar's reign was in fact reckoned thus, this solitary instance would establish no such custom, for it would prove nothing more than that the Jews in Jerusalem, knowing nothing of the politics or customs of Babylon, reckoned Nebuchadnezzar's reign upon a system of their own. But I believe this theory about Nebuchadnezzar's reign is a thorough blunder. If in the sacred history he is called King of Babylon, in connection with his first invasion of Judea, it is because the writers were his contemporaries. "Lord Beaconsfield was Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord Derby's administrations" is a statement which will be rightly condemned as an anachronism if made by the historian of the future, but it is precisely the language which would have been used by a contemporary writer acquainted with the living statesman. I have shown elsewhere (App. 1., ante) that the Jews reckoned Nebuchadnezzar's reign according to their own custom, as dating from the Nisan preceding his accession. Unless, therefore, some entirely new case can be made in support of the co-regency theory of Xerxes's reign, it remains that the book of Esther is absolutely conclusive against Ussher's date, and in favor of the received chronology.
IN treating of the date of the birth of our Lord, the arguments in favor of an earlier date than that which is here adopted are too well known to be left unnoticed. Dr. Farrar states the question thus in his Life of Christ (Excursus 1.):--
"Our one most certain datum is obtained from the tact that Christ was born before the death of Herod the Great. The date of that event is known with absolute certainty, for (2) Josephus tells us that he died thirty-seven years after he had been declared king by the Romans. Now it is known that he was declared King A. U. C. 714; and, therefore, since Josephus always reckons his years from Nisan to Nisan, and counts the initial and terminal fractions of Nisan as complete years, Herod must have died between Nisan A. U. C. 750 and Nisan A. U. C. 751, i.e., between B.C. 4 and B.C. 3 of our era. (2.) Josephus says that on the night in which Herod ordered Judas, Matthias, and their abettors to be burnt, there was an eclipse of the moon. Now this eclipse took place on the night of March 12th, B.C. 4, and Herod was dead at least seven days before the Passover, which, if we accept the Jewish reckoning, fell in that year on April 12th. But according to the clear indication of the Gospels, Jesus must have been born at least forty days before Herod's death. It is clear, therefore, that under no circumstances can the nativity have taken place later than February B.C. 4." [14]
This passage is a typical illustration of the relative value attached to the statements of sacred and profane historians. In the histories of Josephus an incidental mention of an eclipse or of the length of a king's reign suffices to give "absolute certainty," before which the clearest and most definite statements of Holy Writ must give place, albeit they relate to matters of such transcendent interest to the writers that even if the Evangelists be dismissed to the category of mere historians, no mistake was possible.
The following is a more temperate statement of the question, by the Archbishop of York, in an article (Jesus Christ) contributed to Smith's Bible Dictionary.-
"Herod the Great died, according to Josephus, in the thirty-seventh year after he was appointed king. His elevation coincides with the consulship of Cn Domitius Calvinus and C. Asinius Pollio, and this determines the date A. U. C. 714. There is reason to think that in such calculations Josephus reckons the years from the month Nisan to the same month, and also that the death of Herod took place in the beginning of the thirty-seventh year, or just before the Passover; if then thirty-six complete years are added, they give the year of Herod's death, A. U. C. 750."
According to this, the commonly received view, Herod's death took place within the first six days of a Jewish year, and these days are reckoned as a complete year in his regnal era. Now it is admitted that in computing time the Jews generally included both the terminal units of a given period. A signal and well-known instance of this is afforded by the words of the Lord Himself, when He declared He would lie in death for three days and nights. What meaning did these words convey to Jews? Four-and-twenty hours after His burial they came to Pilate and said, "We remember that that deceiver said, while He was yet alive, 'After three days I will rise again;' command, therefore, that the sepulcher be made sure until the third day." [15] Had that Sunday passed leaving the seal upon the tomb unbroken, the Pharisees would boldly have proclaimed their triumph; whereas, by our modes of reckoning, the resurrection ought to have been deferred till Monday night, or Tuesday morning. [16]
Again, it may be assumed that Herod's accession dated in fact from B.C. 40, and, therefore, that B.C. 4 was the thirty-seventh and last year of his reign. Further it is probable he died shortly before a Passover. The question remains whether his death occurred at the beginning or toward the close of the Jewish year.
Josephus relates that when the event took place Archelaus remained in seclusion during seven days, and then presented himself publicly to the people. His first reception was not unfavorable, though he had to yield to many a popular demand then pressed on him; and after the ceremonial, he "went and offered sacrifice to God, and then betook himself to feast with his friends." Soon, however, discontent and disaffection began to smolder and spread, and fresh demands were made upon the king. To these again he yielded, though with less grace, instructing his general to remonstrate with the people, and persuade them to defer their petitions till his return from Rome. These appeals only increased the prevailing dissatisfaction, and a riot ensued. The king still continued to parley with the seditious, but, "upon the approach of the feast of unleavened bread," when the capital became thronged with the Jews from the country, the state of things became so alarming that Archelaus determined; to suppress the rioters by force of arms. This was "upon the approach of the feast," and the Jews considered the Passover was "nigh at hand" upon the eighth day of Nisan, when they repaired to Jerusalem for the festival. [17]
The Passover began the 14th Nisan. This final riot took place during the preceding week. The earlier riot occurred before that again, £e., before the date of the incursion of Jews for the festival, the 8th Nisan. This again was preceded by some interval, measured from the day following the court mourning for Herod, which had lasted seven days. The history, therefore, establishes conclusively that Herod's death was more than fourteen days before the Passover, and therefore at the close and not at the beginning of a Jewish year.
But which year? His death must have been after the eclipse of 13th March, B.C. 4 [18] But the eclipse was only a month before the Passover of that year, and his death was fourteen days at least before the Passover, could then the events recorded by Josephus as occurring in the interval between the eclipse and the king's death have taken place in a fortnight? Let the reader turn to the Antiquities and judge for himself whether it be possible. The natural inference from the history is that the death was not weeks but months after the eclipse, and therefore, again, at the close of the year.
The correctness of this conclusion can be established by the application of the strictest of all tests, that of referring to the historian's chronological statements.
In his Wars (2:7, 3), Josephus assigns the banishment of Archelaus to the ninth year of his government; in his later work (Ant., 17, 13, 3), he states it was in his tenth year. And these dates are given with a definiteness and in a manner which preclude the idea of a blunder. They are connected with the narration of a dream in which Archelaus saw a number of ears of corn (nine in the Wars, ten in the Antiquities), devoured by oxen, - presaging that the years of his rule were about to be brought abruptly to an end. Now whether a ruler be Christian, Jew, or Turk, his ninth year is the year beginning with the eighth anniversary of his government, and his tenth year that beginning with the ninth anniversary; and it is mere casuistry to pretend that there is either mystery or difficulty in the matter. It is evident that the difference between the two statements of the historian is intentional, and that in his two histories he computed the Ethnarch's government from two different epochs. But if Herod died in the first week of the Jewish year, as these writers maintain, this would be impossible, for Archelaus's actual accession would have synchronized with his accession according to Jewish reckoning. Whereas if his government dated from the close of a Jewish year, A.D. 6 [19] would be his ninth year in fact, but his tenth year according to Mishna rule of computing reigns from Nisan.
In numerous treatises on this subject will be found an argument based on John 2:20, "Forty and six years was this temple in building." According to Josephus (it is urged), "Herod's reconstruction of the temple began in the eighteenth year of his reign," [20] and forty-six years from that date would fix A.D. 26 as the year in which these words were spoken, and therefore as the first year of our Lord's ministry. That writers of repute should have written thus may be described as a literary phenomenon. Not only does Josephus not say what is thus attributed to him, but his narrative disproves it. The foundation for the statement is that either in his eighteenth or nineteenth year [21] Herod made a speech proposing to rebuild the temple. But the historian adds, that finding his intentions and promises thoroughly distrusted by the people, "the king encouraged them, and told them he would not pull down their temple till all things were gotten ready for building it up entirely again. And as he promised them this beforehand, so he did not break his word with them, but got ready a thousand wagons, that were to bring stones for the building, and chose out ten thousand of the most skillful workmen, and bought a thousand sacerdotal garments for the priests, and had some of them taught the art of stone-cutters, and others of carpenters, and then began to build; but this was not till everything was well prepared for the work." [22] What length of time these preparations occupied, it is of course impossible to decide, but if, as Lewin supposes, the work was begun at the Passover of B.C. 18, then forty-six years would bring us exactly to A.D. 29 - the first Passover of the Lord's ministry.
THE historical interpreters of prophecy have grasped a principle the importance of which is abundantly proved by the striking parallelisms between the visions of the Apocalypse and the events of the history of Christendom. But not content with this, they have on the one hand brought discredit on prophetic study by wild and arrogant predictions about the end of the world, and on the other, they have reduced their principle of interpretation to a system, and then degraded it to a hobby. The result is fortunate in this respect, that the evil cannot fail to cure itself, and the time cannot be far distant when the "continuous historical interpretation," in the form and manner in which its champions have propounded it, will be regarded as a vagary of the past. The events of the first half of the present century produced on the minds of Christians such an impression in its favor, that it bid fair to gain general acceptance. But the late Mr. Elliott's great work has thoroughly exposed its weaknesses. A perusal of the first five chapters of the Horae Apocalypticae cannot fail to impress the reader with a sense of the genuineness and importance of the writer's scheme, nor will he fail to appreciate the erudition displayed, and the sobriety with which it is used. But when he passes from the commentary upon the first five seals, to the account of the sixth seal, he must experience a revulsion of feeling which will be strong just in proportion to his apprehension of the trueness and solemnity of Holy Writ. Let any one read the last six verses of the sixth chapter of Revelation, a passage the awful solemnity of which has scarcely a parallel in Scripture, and with what feelings will he turn to Mr. Elliott's book to find that the words are nothing more than a prediction of the downfall of paganism in the fourth century!
The words of the Apocalyptic vision in relation to the great day of Divine wrath (Revelation 6:17), are the language of Isaiah (13:9, 10) respecting "the day of the Lord," and again of Joel's prophecy (Joel 2:1, 30, 31, quoted by St. Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:16-20). Nor is this all. The twenty-fourth chapter of St. Matthew is a Divine commentary upon the visions of the sixth chapter of Revelation, and each of the seals has its counterpart in the Lord's predictions of events preceding His second advent:, ending with the mention of these same terrible convulsions of nature here described. Therefore, even if the mind be "educated" up to the point of accepting such an interpretation of the vision of the sixth seal, these other Scriptures remain to be accounted for.
Many other points in Mr. Elliott's scheme might be cited as equally faulty. Take for example the labored essay on the subject of the two witnesses, culminating in the amazing and-climax that their ascent to heaven (Revelation 11:12) was fulfilled when Protestants obtained "an advancement to political dignity and power." (Horae. Ap., 2., 410). Still more wild and reckless is his exposition of Revelation 12:5. "It seems clear" (he says) "that whatever the woman's hope in her travail, the lesser consummation was the one figured in the man child's birth and assumption, viz., the elevation of the Christians, first to recognition as a body politic, then very quickly to the supremacy of the throne in the Roman Empire" (vol. 3., 12). The reference to Wilberforce in connection with Revelation 15: is almost grotesque (vol. 3., 430). And finally he drifts upon the rock on which every man who follows this false system must inevitably be wrecked - the chronology of prophecy: proving by cumulative evidence that the year 1865 would usher in the millennium, or if not 1865, then 1877 or 1882 (vol. 3., 256-266).
"An apocalyptic commentary which explains everything is self-convicted of error." This dictum of Dan. Alford's (Gr. Test.. Revelation 11:2) applies with full force to Mr. Elliott's book. Maintaining as he does that these visions have received their absolute and final fulfillment, he is bound to explain everything;" and as the result these lucubrations mar a work which if recast by some intelligent student of prophecy would be of the highest value. In days like these, when we have to contend for the very words of Scripture, we cannot afford to dismiss them as harmless puerilities. They have given an impetus to the skepticism of the age, and have encouraged Christian men to treat the most solemn warnings of coming wrath as mere stage thunder.
Mr. Elliott's mantle appears now to have fallen upon the author of the Approaching End of t/re Age. Mr. Grattan Guinness's treatise upon lunisolar cycles and epacts will be deemed by many the most interesting and valuable portion of the work. The study of it has confirmed an impression I have long entertained, that in some mystic interpretation of the prophetic periods of Daniel, the chronology of Gentile supremacy and of the Christian dispensation lies concealed. Professor Birks, however, justly remarks, that it is "very doubtful whether much of the specialty on which Mr. Guinness founds this part of his theory is not due to a partial selection unconsciously made of some epact numbers out of many, and that the special relations of the epacts to the numbers 6, 7, 8, 13, would probably disappear on a comprehensive examination of all the epact numbers" (Thoughts on Sacred Prophecy, p. 64).
It might also be remarked that with the latitude obtained by reckoning sometimes in lunar years, sometimes in lunisolar years, and sometimes in ordinary Julian years, the list of seeming chronological coincidences and parallelisms might be still further increased. The period from the Council of Nice (A.D. 325) to the death of Gregory XIII. (1585) was 1, 260 years. From the edict of Justinian (533) to the French Revolution was 1, 260 years; and again from A.D. 606, when the Emperor Phocas conferred the title of Pope on Boniface III., to the overthrow of the temporal power (1866-1870), was also 1, 260 years. If these facts prove anything, they prove, not that the periods mentioned are the fulfillment of Daniel's visions, for Daniel's visions relate to the history of Judah, with which these events have nothing to do, but that the chronology of such events is marked by cycles composed of multiples of seventy. Therefore, they greatly strengthen the a priori presumption that this is a general characteristic of "the tithes and seasons" as divinely planned, and that the visions will, hereafter, be literally fulfilled. In a word, such proofs prove far too much for the cause they are intended to support.
I have already noticed the transparent fallacy of sup posing that the ten-horned beast and the Babylon of the Apocalypse can both be typical of Rome (p. 134, ante). In the, Approaching End of the Age this fallacy is accepted apparently without suspicion or misgiving, for the writer neither adopts nor improves upon the pleasing romance by which Mr. Elliott attempts to conceal the absurdity of such a view.
As the Harlot comes to her doom by the agency of the Beast, it is absolutely certain that they are not identical; and every proof these writers urge to establish that the Church of Rome is Babylon, is equally conclusive to prove that the Papacy is not the Beast, the Man of Sin. Their whole system is like a house of cards which falls to pieces the moment it is tried. As such books are read by many who are unversed in history it may be well to repeat once more, that the division of the Roman earth into ten kingdoms has never yet taken place. That it has been partitioned is plain matter of history and of fact' that it has ever been divided into ten is a mere conceit of writers of this school. [23]
Of Daniel 9:24-27 Mr. Guinness writes, "From the then approaching command to restore and to build again Jerusalem, to the coming of Messiah the Prince, was to be seventy weeks" (p. 417). This is a typical instance of the looseness of the historical school in dealing with Scripture. The words of the prophecy are, "From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks." [24] As this error underlies his entire exposition of the prophecy which forms the special subject of these pages, it is needless to discuss it. He follows Prideaux in computing the weeks from the seventh year of Artaxerxes.
Again, in common with almost all commentators he confounds the seventy years of Judah's servitude with the seventy years of the desolations of Jerusalem. The prophecy he quotes from Jeremiah 25 (p. 414) was given in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, whereas the servitude began in his third year; and it foretold a judgment which fell seventeen years; later It would seem ungracious to notice'. minor inaccuracies, such as that of confounding Belshazzar with Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon.
Such a book is useful in so far as it deals positively with the historical fulfillment as a primary and partial realization of the prophecies; and as a full and fearless indictment of the Church of Rome it is most valuable. But in the dogmatic negation of a literal fulfillment, in the blind and obstinate determination to establish, no matter at what cost to Scripture, that the Apocalypse has been "FULFILLED in the events of the Christian era," such a work cannot fail to be dangerous and mischievous. The real question at issue here is the character and value of the Bible. If the views of these writers be just, the language of Holy Writ in such passages as the close of the sixth chapter of Revelation is the most utter bombast. And if wild exaggeration characterize one portion of the Scriptures, what confidence can we have in any part? If the Great Day of Divine wrath, described in terms of unsurpassed solemnity, were nothing but a brief crisis in the history of a campaign now long past, the words which tell of the joy of the blessed and the doom of the impenitent may after all be mere hyperbole, and the Christian's faith may be mere credulity.
"PROPHECY is not given to enable us to prophesy," and no one who has worthily pursued the study will fail to feel misgivings at venturing out upon the tempting field of forecasting "things to come." By patient contemplation we may clearly discern the main outlines of the landscape of the future; but "until the day dawn," our apprehension of distances and details must be inadequate, if not wholly false. The great facts of the future, so plainly revealed in Scripture, have been touched on in preceding pages. For what follows here no deference is claimed save what may be accorded to a "pious opinion" based on earnest and careful inquiry.
Next to the restoration of the Jews, the most prominent political feature of the future, according to Scripture, is the tenfold partition of the Roman earth. The emphasis and definiteness with which ten kingdoms are specified, not only in Daniel, but in the Revelation, forbid our interpreting the words as describing merely a division of power such as has existed ever since the disruption of the Roman Empire, though this is undoubtedly a feature of the prophecy. Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome in turn sought to grasp universal dominion. That there should be a commonwealth of nations living side by side at peace, was a conception that nothing in the history of the world could have suggested.
The principal clew which Scripture affords upon the subject is the connection between these kingdoms and the Roman Empire. [25] But some latitude must probably be allowed as to boundaries, otherwise we should have to choose between two equally improbable alternatives, namely, either that our own nation shall have sunk to the position of a province, not even Ireland remaining under her sway, [26] or else that the England which is to be numbered among the ten kingdoms will include the vast empire of which this island is the heart and center. May we not indulge the hope that however far our nation may lapse in evil days to come from the high place which, with all her faults, she has held as the champion of freedom and of truth, she will be saved from the degradation of participating in the vile confederacy of the latter days?
These considerations as to boundaries apply also to Germany, though in a lower degree; and Russia is clearly out of the reckoning altogether. The special interest and importance of these conclusions depend upon the fact that the antichrist is to be at first a patron and supporter of the religious apostasy of Christendom, and that England, Germany, and Russia are precisely the three first-rate Powers who are outside the pale of Rome.
But there is no doubt that Egypt, Turkey, and Greece will be numbered among the ten kingdoms; [27] and is it not improbable in the extreme that these nations will ever accept the leadership of a man who is to appear as the champion and patron of the Latin Church? A striking solution of this difficulty will probably be found in the definite prediction, that while the ten kingdoms will ultimately own his suzerainty, three of the ten will be brought into subjection by force of arms (Daniel 7:24.)
Turning again to the West, the names of France, Austria, Italy, and Spain present themselves; and seven of the kingdoms are thus accounted for. Can the list be completed? Belgium, Switzerland, and Portugal remain, and these too would claim a place were we dealing with the Europe of today; but as it is the future we are treating of, any attempt to press the matter further seems futile. It has been confidently urged by some that as the ten kingdoms were symbolized by the ten toes of Nebuchadnezzar's image, - five on either foot, - five of these kingdoms must be developed in the East, and five in the West. The argument is plausible, and possibly just; but its chief force depends upon forgetting that in the prophet's view the Levant and not the Adriatic, Jerusalem and not Rome, is the center of the world.
To the scheme here indicated the objection may naturally be raised: Is it possible that the most powerful nations of the world, England, Germany, and Russia, are to have no part in the great drama of the last days? But it must be remembered, first, that the relative importance of the great Powers may be different at the time when these events shall be fulfilled, and secondly, that difficulties of this kind may depend entirely on the silence of Scripture, or, in other words, on our own ignorance. I feel bound to notice, however, that doubts which have been raised in my mind regarding the soundness of the received interpretation of the seventh chapter of Daniel point to a more satisfactory answer to the difficulties in question.
As the vision of the second chapter specifies the four empires which were successively to rule the world, and as the seventh chapter also enumerates four "kingdoms," and expressly identifies the fourth of these with the fourth - kingdom of the earlier vision, the inference appears legitimate that the scope of both visions is the same throughout. And this conclusion is apparently confirmed by some of the details afforded of the kingdoms typified by the lion, the bear, and the leopard. So strong indeed is the prima facie case in support of this view, that I have not felt at liberty to depart from it in the foregoing pages. At the same time I am constrained to own that this case is less complete than it appears to be, and that grave difficulties arise in connection with it; and the following observations are put forward tentatively to promote inquiry in the matter:--
1st. Daniel 2 and 7 are both in the Chaldee portion of the Book, and are therefore bracketed together, and separated from what follows. This strengthens the presumption, therefore, which would obtain in any case, that the later vision is not a repetition of the earlier one. Repetition is very rare in Scripture.
2nd. The date of the vision of the seventh chapter was the first year of Belshazzar, and therefore only some two or three years before the fall of the Babylonian empire. [28] How then could the rise of that empire be the subject of the prophecy? Verse 17 appears definite that the rise of all these kingdoms was future.
3rd. In the history of Babylonia there is nothing to correspond with the predicted course of the first Beast, for it is scarcely legitimate to suppose that the vision was a prophecy of the career of Nebuchadnezzar, whose death had taken place upwards of twenty years before the vision was given. Moreover, the transition from the lion with eagle's wings to the human condition, though it may betoken decline in power, plainly typifies a signal rise morally and intellectually.
4th. Neither is there in the history of Persia anything answering to the bear-like beast with that precision and fullness which prophecy demands. The language of the English version suggests a reference to Persia and Media; but the true rendering appears to be: "It made for itself one dominion," [29] instead of" It raised up itself on one side."
5th. While the symbolism of the sixth verse seems at first sight to point definitely to the Grecian Empire, it will appear upon a closer examination that at its advent the leopard had four wings and four heads. This was its primary and normal condition, and it was in this condition that "dominion was given to it." This surely is very different from what Daniel 8:8 describes, and what the history of Alexander's Empire realized, viz., the rise of a single power, which in its decadence continued to exist in a divided state.
6th. Each of the three first empires of the second chapter (Babylon, Persia, and Greece) was in turn destroyed and engulfed by its successor; but the kingdoms of the seventh chapter all continued together upon the scene, though "the dominion," was with the fourth (Daniel 7:12). Verse 3 seems to imply that the four beasts came up together, and at all events there is nothing to suggest a series of empires, each destroying its predecessor, though the symbolism of the vision was (in contrast with that of chap. 2.) admirably adapted to represent this. Compare the language of the next vision (Daniel 8:3-6).
7th. While the fourth beast is unquestionably Rome, the language of the seventh and twenty-third verses leaves no doubt that it is the Roman Empire in its revived and future phase. Without endorsing the views of Maitland, Browne, etc., it must be owned that there was nothing in the history of ancient Rome to correspond with the main characteristic of this beast unless the symbolism used is to be very loosely interpreted. To "devour the earth," "tread it down and break it in pieces," is fairly descriptive of other empires, but Ancient Rome was precisely the one power which added government to conquest, and instead of treading down and breaking in pieces the nations it subdued, sought rather to mold them to its own civilization and polity.
All this - and more might be added [30] - suggests that the entire vision of the seventh chapter may have a future reference. We have already seen that sovereign power is to be with a confederacy of ten nations ultimately heading up in one great Kaiser, and that several of what are now the first-rate Powers are to be outside that confederacy: it is in the last degree improbable, therefore, that such a supremacy will be attained save after a tremendous struggle. At this moment the international politics of the old world center in the Eastern Question, which is after all merely a question of the balance of power in the Mediterranean. Now Daniel 7:2 expressly names the Mediterranean ("the Great Sea") as the scene of the conflict between the four beasts. May not the opening portion of the vision then refer to the gigantic struggle which must come some day for supremacy in the Mediterranean, which will doubtless carry with it the sovereignty of the world? The lion may possibly typify England, whose vast naval power may be symbolized by the eagle's wings. The plucking of the wings may represent the loss of her position as mistress of the seas. And if such should be the result of the impending struggle, we would be eager to believe that her after course shall be characterized by moral and mental pre-eminence: the beast, we read, was "made to stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it."
If the British lion have a place in the vision, the Muscovite bear can scarcely be omitted; and it may confidently be averred that the bear of the prophecy may represent the Russia of today fully as well as the Persia of Cyrus and Darius. The definiteness of the symbolism used in respect of the leopard (or panther) of the vision makes it more difficult to refer this portion of the prophecy to Germany or any oilier nation in particular. It would be easy to make out an ad captandum case in support of such a view, but it may suffice to remark that if the prophecy be still unfulfilled, its meaning will be incontestable when the time arrives.
CHRONOLOGICAL DIAGRAM OF THE HISTORY OF JUDAH or in a new window.
Anderson's "Chronological Diagram of the History of Judah" is a panoramic view of both history and prophecy in relation to Daniel's people (Judah) and city (Jerusalem), i.e., "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy" (Daniel 9:24). Anderson chronologically integrates secular history, Jewish history, the history of Jerusalem and the Temple, Daniel's vision of the "great image" (2:31), and the ministry of the prophets, with a view toward the consummation of God's program of judgment during the Seventieth Week (9:27). Simply studying the diagram to catch Anderson's meaning is enough to provoke greater understanding of a subject that even the "angels desire to look into" (1Peter 1:12).
[1] Encyc. Brit., 9th ed., title "Artaxerxes."
[2] W. K. Loftus, "Chaldea and Susiana," p. 341.
[3] Daniel, p. 160.
[4] On this point I have consulted the author of The Five Great Monarchies, a book to which frequent reference is made in these pages, and I am indebted to Canon Rawlinson's courtesy and kindness for the following reply: "I think you may safely say that chronologers are now agreed that Xerxes died in the year B. C. 465. The Canon of Ptolemy, Thucydides, Diodorus, and Manetho are agreed; the only counter authority being Ctesias, who is quite untrustworthy."
[5] Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. 9., second part, p 184.
[6] Works, vol. 15., p. 108.
[7] Arnold's trans., pp. 443-454.
[7-2] Kruger's arguments are reviewed by Clinton in F. H., 2., p. 217.
[8] Daniel, p. 171, note.
[9] See ex. gr. Mitford, 2., 226; Thirlwall, 2., 428; Grote, 5., 379; and of Germans see Niebuhr, Lect. Anc. Hist. (Schmitz ed.), 2., 180-181.
[10] Daniel, p. 266.
[11] Ibid. p. 99, note.
[12] The Feast of Purim derives its name from the fact that when Haman planned the destruction of the people of Mordecai, he cast lots day by day to find "a lucky day "for the execution of his scheme. A whole year - the twelfth year of Xerxes - was thus consumed (Esther 3:7); and the decree for the slaughter of the Jews was made on the 13th Nisan in the following year (ibid. 3:12). The decree in their favor was granted two months later (ibid. 8:9), and the king is mentioned in connection with the execution of that decree in the twelfth month of that year (ibid. 9: l, 13-17). The reign of Xerxes therefore certainly continued to the last month of his thirteenth year. The last chapter of Esther, moreover, clearly shows that his reign did not end with the events recorded in the book, but that his promotion of Mordecai was the beginning of a new era in his career.
[13] Christology (Arnold's trans.), Ch. 737.
[14] Dr. Farrar's book has done much to popularize a controversy which hitherto has interested only the few. It may be well to notice, therefore, that his sweeping statement as to the date of Herod's death is doubtful (see Clinton, Fasti Rom., A. D. 29), and that Josephus does not always reckon reigns in the manner indicated.
[15] Matthew 27:63, 64; comp. 2 Chronicles 10:5-12. "He said unto them, Come again unto me after three days... so Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day?"
[16] Whether such a system of reckoning appears strange or natural depends on the habit of thought of the individual. A professor of theology might have trouble in defending it in class, but a prison chaplain would have no difficulty in explaining it to his congregation! Our own civil day is a nuchthameron, beginning at midnight, and the law takes no cognizance of a part of a day. Therefore in a sentence of three days' imprisonment, the prescribed term is equal to seventy-two hours; but though the prisoner seldom reaches the gaol till evening, the law holds him to have completed a day's imprisonment the moment midnight strikes, and the gaoler may lawfully release him the moment the prison is opened the second morning after. As a matter of fact a prisoner committed for three days is seldom more than forty hours in gaol. This mode of reckoning and speaking was as familiar to the Jew as it is to the habitues of our police courts.
[17] "When the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus" (i. e., Nisan) (Jos., Wars, 6. 5, 3. Comp. John 11:55; 12:1). "The Jews' Passover was nigh at hand, and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves. Then Jesus six days before the Passover came to Bethany."
[18] There was no lunar eclipse visible at Jerusalem between that of the 13th March B. C. 4 and that of 9th January B. C. 1. Many writers take the latter to be the eclipse of Herod, and assign his death to that year. That of B. C. 1 was a fine total eclipse, totality coming on at fifteen minutes past midnight, whereas that of B. C. 4 was but a partial eclipse, and the greatest magnitude was not till 2 h. 34 m. a. m. (Johnson, Eclipses Past and Future). But though every consideration of this character points to B. C. 1 as the (late of Herod's death, the weight of evidence generally is in favor of B. C. 4. Of recent writers, the former year is adopted by Dr. Geikie (Life of Christ, 6th ed., p. 150), and notably by the late Mr. Bosanquet, who argues the question in his Messiah the Prince, and more concisely in a paper read before the Society of Biblical Archaeology on 6th June, 1871.
[19] This is the year specified by Dion Cassius for the Ethnarch's banishment. Clinton, F. H., A. D. 6.
[20] Farrar, Life of Christ, App. Exc. 1.
[21] It depends on the meaning of the word gegonotos in the passage, whether the eighteenth or nineteenth year be intended. The narrative, as a whole, points to the nineteenth year. Cf Lewin's Fasti Sacri, pp. 56: and 92.
[22] Josephus, Ant., 15. 11, 27.
[23] See p. 39, ante. Elliott's list of the ten kingdoms is the following: The Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Allmans, Burgundians, Visigoths, Suevi, Vandals, Ostrogoths, Bavarians, and Lombards. If any one can read the seventh chapter of Daniel and the thirteenth chapter of Revelation and accept such an interpretation, there is really no common ground on which to discuss the matter.
[24] I deprecate the idea that my object is to review this or any other book. Were such my intention I could point out other similar errors. Exodus gr., in Pt. III., chap. l, the writer enumerates five points of identity between the Harlot and the Church of Rome, and of these five the two last are sheer blunders, viz., "The minister of the harlot makes fire to descend from heaven," "And the harlot requires all to receive her mark." (Comp. Revelation 13:13, 16)
[25] "The ten horns out of this kingdom" (Daniel 7:24).
[26] Ireland was entirely, and Scotland was in part, outside the territorial limits of the Roman Empire.
[27] In Daniel 11:40, Egypt and Turkey (or the Power which shall then possess Asia Millor) are expressly mentioned by their prophetic titles as separate kingdoms at this very time.
[28] See Chron. Table, App. 1, ante.
[29] Tregelles, Daniel, p. 34.
[30] The beasts of Daniel 7 are those named in Revelation 13:2, to represent the Antichrist. Though this admits of the explanation given, it may also be used a strong argument in favor of the view above set forth.
"TAKE heed that no man deceive you." Such were the first words of our Lord's reply to the inquiry, "What shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the age?" And the warning is needed still. "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons," was almost His last utterance on earth, before He was taken up. And if this knowledge was denied to His holy apostles and prophets, we may be sure it has not been disclosed to us today. Nor can a secret which, as the Lord declared, "the Father hath put in His own power," (Acts 1:7) be discovered by astronomical research or flights of higher mathematics.
But, on the other hand, no thoughtful Christian can ignore the signs and portents which mark the days we live in. I little thought as I penned the introductory chapter of this book that the advance of infidelity would be with such terribly rapid strides. In the few brief years that have since elapsed the growth of skepticism within the Churches has exceeded even the gloomiest forecast. And side by side with this, again, the spread of spiritualism and demon-worship has been appalling. Its rotaries are reckoned by tens of thousands; and in America it has already been systematized into a religion, with a recognized creed and cult.
But these dark features of our times, striking and solemn though they be, are not the most significant. While the warned-against apostasy of the last days thus seems to be drawing near, we are gladdened by signal triumphs of the Cross. It is not merely that at home and abroad the Gospel is being preached by such multitudes with a freedom never known before, but that, in a way unprecedented since the days of the Apostles, the Jews are coming to the faith of Christ. The fact is but little known that during the last few years more than a quarter of a million copies of the New Testament in Hebrew have been circulated among the Jews in Eastern Europe, and the result has been their conversion to Christianity, not by ones and twos, as in the past, but in large and increasing numbers. Entire communities in some places have, through reading the word of God, accepted the despised Nazarene as the true Messiah. This is wholly without parallel since Pentecostal times.
Then again, the return of the Jews to Palestine is one of the strangest facts of the day. There is scarcely a country in the world that does not offer more attractions to the settler, be he agriculturist or trader; and yet, since The Coming Prince was written, more Jews have migrated to the land of their fathers than returned with Ezra when the decree of Cyrus brought the servitude to a close. But yesterday the prophecy that Jerusalem should be inhabited "as towns without walls" seemed to belong to a future far remote. The houses beyond the gates were few in number, and no one ventured abroad there after nightfall. Today the existence of a large and growing Jewish town outside the walls is a fact within the knowledge of every tourist, and year by year the immigration and the building still go on.
If I venture to touch upon the international politics of Europe, it will be but briefly, in connection with the prophecy of the seventh chapter of Daniel. I have given in detail my reasons for suggesting that the "historical" interpretation of that vision does not exhaust its meaning, [1] and I own to a deepening conviction that every part of it awaits its fulfillment. There, as elsewhere in the Scriptures, "the great sea" must surely mean the Mediterranean; and a terrible struggle for supremacy in the Levant appears to be the burden of the earlier portion of the vision. The nearness of such a struggle is now being anxiously discussed in every capital in Europe, and nowhere more anxiously than here at home. Never indeed since the days of Pitt has there been such cause for national anxiety; and the question of the balance of power in the Mediterranean has recently gained a prominence and interest greater and more acute than ever before attached to it.
I will not notice topics of a more doubtful character, but confine myself to these; nor will I attempt by word-painting to exaggerate their significance. But here we are face to face with great public facts. On the one hand, there is this spread of infidelity and demon-worship, preparing the way for the great infidel and devil-inspired apostasy of the last days; and, on the oth
