is the following. The empire of Persia is only the continuance of the first empire of Babylon. The second is the Grecian, and the third the Roman. The fourth is still future; and some of them fancy that the Babylon of the Apocalypse is the literal Babylon of Chaldea ; that this will revive and form the fourth empire. The four beasts, most of them imagine, are all still future, and the fourth of them only is the same as in the previous vision.

It is plain that these errors are exactly opposite, one to the other, and thus furnish an indirect confirmation of the received view. The two points also on which their truth or falsehood must depend, are the distinctness of Babylon and Persia, and the unity of the Greek empire through its whole course. Besides these, two secondary topics are involved; the sameness of the empires in the two visions, and the literal or mysterious sense of the Apocalyptic Babylon.

I. That Babylon and Persia were two distinct empires, may be proved abundantly by the following arguments.

"God hath

1. The words of Daniel to Belshazzar. numbered thy kingdom and finished it." "Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians." Here we learn, from inspired authority, that at the death of Belshazzar, the kingdom of Babylon was numbered, finished, divided, and given to the Medes and Persians. Words could not express more plainly that another empire was then to begin.

2. The words of Isaiah concerning Tyre. "It shall come to pass in that day, that Tyrus shall be forgotten seventy years, according to the days of one king." The one king is here plainly equivalent to one kingdom, that of Babylon. Its beginning is dated from Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and the captivity of Jehoiakim. And hence the one kingdom closed with the fall of Babylon under Cyrus. For there were just seventy years from the accession of Jehoiakim, the first tributary of Babylon, to the fall of Belshazzar, A.c. 608-538.

3. The words of Jeremiah concerning the captivity; xxv. 11-13. "And this whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, saith the Lord, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations. And I will bring on that land all that I have pronounced against it. For many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of them also; and I will recompense them according to their deeds." Here again it is most clear and evident, that the retribution and fall of the Babylonian kingdom was to be at the close of the seventy years, or A.c. 538-536, at the accession of Darius the Mede and Cyrus.

4. The words of Jeremiah concerning the kingdom itself; xxvii. 6, 7. "And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him. And all nations shall serve him, 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." Here also it is plain that the kingdom of Babylon ceases with the family of Nebuchadnezzar, or in other words, with the death of Belshazzar. No declaration can be plainer than these words of the prophet.

5. The words of Isaiah concerning the fall of Babylon; xiii. 17, 19. "Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver, and as for gold they shall not delight in it. And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldeans' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah." It is plain, here also, that the ruin of the Babylonian kingdom is dated from the triumph of the Medes and Persians.

6. The prophecy of Jeremiah on the same subject ; 1. 1; li. 37. In every part of this description the victory

of the Medes and Persians is made the time of Babylon's overthrow, when it ceases to be a ruling kindom.

7. The change in the laws and government. In Daniel vi. we see clearly that, after the fall of Belshazzar, the laws in force were no longer those of Babylon, but, as it is three times repeated, and with a marked emphasis, the laws of the Medes and Persians. Here is another proof, equally strong and decisive, that a new empire had begun.

8. The change in the seat of empire. For though Babylon continued, naturally, the head of a province, and contained a royal palace; wherever the Scripture after this event marks the place of the royal residence, it is not at Babylon but at Susa; as implied in the book of Ezra, and plainly taught us in the histories of Esther and Nehemiah.

9. The change of the ordinary title. Before the accession of Darius, the monarchs are always called kings of Babylon. Afterwards they are styled, about thirty times, kings of Persia. The five or six exceptions are at once explained, when we remember that Babylon was still the most wealthy province, and that, as the head of gold, it represented the whole succession of the Gentile kingdoms.

10. The typical character of Babylon's fall. This is used often to prefigure the final overthrow of the kingdoms of the world. Now unless there were at least a change of the empire, the type would be most unsuitable. This one fact, of itself, proves that the distinction of Babylon and Persia is more conspicuous than that of Persia and Greece, or Greece and Rome.

11. The direct interpretation of the angel is a further and clear proof. Even before the fall of Babylon the vision of the ram and the he goat was given, with the following explanation. "The ram having the two horns are the kings of Media and Persia." The Medo-Persian was therefore one distinct and separate kingdom, and the angel Gabriel bears direct witness of this truth.

12. Finally, the testimony of profane history is equally clear. To illustrate this, it will be enough to

transcribe the astronomical canon, the main basis of profane chronology, so far as it refers to this period. of Nabonassar.

The dates are there given in the years

Nabocalassar,

21 years, died A. N. 143, A. c. 605.

186,

...

Ilverodamus,

Nericassolassarus,

Nabonadius,

...

562. 560. 556.

...

This important document accords, therefore, entirely with the usual exposition of the four kingdoms. The break between Persia and Babylon is here just as complete as between Persia and Greece, or Greece and Rome. The only variety is the distinction between the kings of the Greeks, and the Greek kings in Egypt. And this naturally arose from the fourfold separation of that empire, and the place where the canon itself was compiled, under the Egyptian kings.

Thus complete and overwhelming is the proof that Babylon and Persia form, in the prophecy, two distinct empires. Three reasons only seem to have been offered for confounding them together, and these are all clearly erroneous or inconclusive. The first is the occasional use of the title, king of Babylon, to describe the Persian monarchs. But this is very rare, and may be explained by special reasons in each case, besides the general fact that Babylon continued a main province of the empire, though its rule had passed away.

The next reason is, that the second empire is inferior to the first; but the Macedonian was a smaller empire than the Babylonian, and the Persian larger. Both premises are here untrue. The inferiority, as both the symbol and the etymology of the word prove, is not in size or extent, but in dignity and grandeur. And again, the Macedonian empire under Alexander was not smaller but larger than the Persian.

Again, the third empire alone, it is said, was to bear rule over all the earth. But this was not true of the Macedonian, and is true, in a relative sense, of the Roman. Here also both premises are untrue. Universal rule is not a distinctive mark of the third empire. It is directly ascribed to three out of four, and plainly implied of the other also. The prophet is not contrasting the second and third empires, but deducing from the symbol a character which is common to them both. The other premise is equally fallacious. For the Macedonian empire was larger than that of Babylon, which the prophet himself calls universal.

C