KING BALTASSAR'S CONDEMNATION. 379 A.M. 3466.] King Baltassar's Condemnation. [A.C. 538. Not many years after this time, the victorious army of the Medes and Persians, commanded by Cyrus, invaded the country of Babylon. The result of the very first engagement was to drive the Babylonian army within the defences of their capital, which was at once besieged by Cyrus. After the siege had lasted for some time, during which the assailants seemed to make but little progress in reducing the mighty city, Baltassar, the king, who had remained within its walls, made a great feast for a thousand of his nobles, for his wives, and concubines, and all the chief men of the state. At this banquet, when heated with wine, he ordered the gold and silver vessels which Nabuchodonosor had taken from the Temple at Jerusalem to be brought forth, that he and his officers, and his wives and concubines might drink from them, in honour of their idols and graven gods. In the midst of their profane mirth, the fingers, as it were, of a man's hand, were seen to write some mysterious words upon the wall of the banqueting hall. Instantly the mirth was hushed, Baltassar's countenance grew deadly pale, his heart throbbed, his knees, in the agony of his terror, smote one against the other, guilt and remorse troubled his very soul. He cried aloud for his wise men to come and to explain away his fears. They came; but although he promised great honours to any of them that should interpret for him the meaning of the mysterious writing, none of them could do so; they knew not how to read the mysterious characters, much less to interpret them; the king's trouble increased; his nobles were in the utmost consternation. The queen, his mother, being told what had happened, went to the banqueting hall, and endeavoured to calm Baltassar's mind; she suggested that Daniel, whom, on account of his superior wisdom, Nabuchodonosor had appointed prince of the wise men, should be sent for. Daniel was immediately introduced; the king promised to honour him with a purple robe and a golden collar, and to promote him to the third place in the kingdom of Babylon, if he would read the writing, and declare the interpretation thereof. The holy prophet answered: "Keep thy rewards to thyself, O King, and reserve thy gifts for others; as to the writing, I will read it for thee, and show thee the interpretation thereof. Nabuchodonosor, thy father, was a great and illustrious prince; but when his heart was lifted up, and his spirit hardened in pride, he was degraded from his throne, driven from the company of men, made to dwell with the wild beasts, and to eat grass like an ox, his body being wet with the dew of heaven, until he humbly submitted to the dominion of the Most High. Thou also hast exalted thyself against the God of Heaven, thou hast profaned His sacred vessels, to His dishonour thou hast extolled thy molten gods, which can neither see or hear thee. For this reason, the hand, by His omnipotent decree, hath written thy condemnation in these three words, Mane, Thekel, Phares. For this is the meaning of them: Mane, God hath numbered the days of thy kingdom, and the number is now finished: Thekel, thou art weighed in the balance, and art found wanting: Phares, thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians."* Baltassar, although he. * Until a few years since, unbelievers were never tired of urging that this portion of the Book of Daniel was plainly untrustworthy. For, profane historians of unimpeachable character related (see Note, p. 374), that the capture of Babylon by the Medo-Persians, took place in the reign of a Babylonian king called Nabonadius (or Labynetus), not of one called Baltassar; they said that this Nabonadius was not of the royal stock of Nabuchodonosor, to which, according to Daniel (Dan. v. 11) Baltassar belonged; they stated, moreover, that the monarch was absent from Babylon at the time of its capture, and that instead of being slain in the sack of the town (Dan. v. 20), he was made prisoner and kindly treated by the conqueror. Thus the profane and the sacred narratives were represented as contradictory on all points. A very simple discovery, made in Lower Babylon, in the year 1854, has explained, in the most satisfactory way, all these apparent contradictions. In an inscription then disinterred, Nabonadius, the last native king of Babylon, states that his eldest son bore the name Baltassar, and speaks of him in a way which shows that he had been associated with himself in the government. Hence we learn that at the time of the siege, there were two kings of Babylon, Nabonadius (or Labynetus) the father, and Baltassar, the son. The latter was entrusted with the command of the city, while the former occupied a stronghold in the neighbourhood; the latter alone perished, the former escaped. It is the former only, of whom trustworthy historians relate, that he was not of the royal stock; the latter may have been, if his father took the ordinary precaution of marrying into the deposed house.-See RAWLINSON, Historical Illustrations, Chapter 6th. DANIEL A SECOND TIME IN THE LIONS' DEN. 381 heard his doom in the interpretation he received, nevertheless honoured the interpreter, and according to his promise, promoted Daniel to the dignity of being the third man in his kingdom,* little thinking that the words of the mysterious sentence were so soon to be fulfilled. That very night, the besiegers effected an entrance into the city. Baltassar was surprised in his palace, and by his death, an end was put to the mighty empire of Chaldea. The sudden and unforeseen doom that befel the wicked Baltassar at an hour when he least expected it, ought to be a warning, says St. Jerome, to all those Christians whose sinful excesses and impenitent lives expose them to the daily risk of being surprised by a like untimely end. A.M. 3466.] Daniel a second time in the Lions' Den. [A.C. 538. Dan. vi. The revolution that extinguished the race of Chaldean kings in Babylon, opened the way which God had appointed for the restoration of the Jews to their own land. Daniel enjoyed the same favours under the Persian, as he had under the Babylonian kings. Darius, the Mede,‡ the new governor "The fact that the Babylonian throne was at this time occupied conjointly by two monarchs, is indicated in the sacred narrative by this curious casual touch. In every other similar case (compare Gen. xli. 40-5; Esther, x. 3; Dan. ii. 48, 9), the reward is the elevation of the individual who does the service, to the second place in the kingdom, the place next to the king. The only reason that can be assigned for the variation in this instance is, that the first and second places were both filled by Baltassar and his father, and that, therefore, the highest assignable reward was the third place."--RAWLINSON, ibid. † We learn from the historian Xenophon, that the army of Cyrus entered Babylon by the bed of the Euphrates, after the water had been drawn off, by diverting the river into another channel outside the city. Some commentators regard Darius as another name of Cyaxeres II,, a monarch whom some writers represent to have succeeded Astyages on the throne of Media. This opinion, however, is open to many serious objections; the chief of which is, that all trustworthy historians represent Astyages, the monarch overthrown by Cyrus (see Note, p. 376), as the last independent king of the Medes. Others, with much more probability, consider that " Darius, the Mede," was none other than Astyages himself, whom Cyrus, as he was himself hastening on to fresh conquests, appointed as viceroy over the newly-acquired kingdom of of Babylon, respected him as a man filled with the spirit of God, and appointed him chief of the three princes who were placed in authority over the hundred and twenty provincial governors of the conquered kingdom. This partiality towards a Hebrew captive piqued the Persian nobles; they envied Daniel his honours, became jealous of his power, and resolved to do all they could to procure his disgrace. But Daniel was so faithful to his trust, and so irreproachable in his whole conduct, that there was no room for suspicion, and no grounds for any criminal charge against him. His enemies, however, had observed his inviolable attachment to the law of God, his steady piety and his assiduity in prayer. In all this they believed they had discovered the means of surprising him into their snares, they therefore resolved at once to take action against him, but yet, in so artful a manner, as to let no one know or suspect their design. They presented themselves before Darius, whom, with base flattery, they began to extol as the sovereign source from which all favours and gifts were derived, and ought to flow; thus they persuaded him to publish a decree, by which it was ordained, that whosoever, during the space of thirty days, should presume to offer any prayer or petition either to God or to man, except to Darius, the king, should be cast into the lion's den. Darius, who was flattered with the proposal, and had no suspicion of the motives that suggested it, published the strange ordinance. Daniel, steadfast in the religion of his fathers, paid no attention to it, and preferring the law of God to that of men, he retired, as usual, three times every day into his chamber, where, opening the window which looked towards Jerusalem, he knelt down and worshipped God in fervent prayer. His enemies, suspecting that he would act exactly in this way, were upon the watch to surprise him; and after finding him praying to his God, they hastened to Babylon. "It is in accordance with what is elsewhere related of Cyrus, that he should have advanced this monarch, if he was still alive, to the post of Babylonian satrap. In this case, the Oriental respect for regal rank would have been likely to show itself in the assignment of the royal title to one who had formerly been a great monarch."-RAWLINSON, ibid. DANIEL A SECOND TIME IN THE LIONS' DEN. 383 Darius, reminded him of his edict, lodged a formal accusation against Daniel, for having transgressed it, and insisted upon his being cast into the lions' den. Darius was much grieved; he interested himself in behalf of the accused, and laboured until sunset to deliver him out of their hands. The nobles, perceiving the king's designs, and being determined not to yield, reminded Darius, that according to the laws of the Medes and Persians, no royal decree once issued could be revoked or dispensed with; and they demanded, therefore, that as Daniel had offended, he should suffer the penalty set forth in the law. The king could resist no longer. Daniel, by his command, was brought forth and cast into the den of lions. A stone was laid upon the mouth of the den, which the king sealed with his own ring, and with that of the nobles. Darius retired to his palace, where, after refusing all food, he passed a sleepless night; he rose early in the morning, hastened to the den, and with a mournful voice, called out: "Daniel, servant of the living God, hath thy God been able to deliver thee from the lions ?" "O king, live for ever," answered Daniel; "my God hath sent His Angel, and hath shut up the mouths of the lions, and they have not hurt me." The king in a transport of joy commanded that he should be taken out of the den, and that his accusers should take his place. Those men, therefore, who had accused the holy prophet, were brought with their wives and children; they were thrown into the den, and the lions catching them as they fell, at once tore them to pieces. Darius then published a decree, that all within his empire should honour and revere the living and eternal God, who had so wonderfully freed His servant Daniel from the lions' den. Daniel's example of fidelity in the duty of prayer, says St. Jerome, ought to be imitated by all Christian people, that God in His mercy may be moved to preserve them from becoming a prey to enemies infinitely more fierce and powerful than lions. Sin, says the holy Scripture, has the teeth of a lion; its bite is fatal to the soul, and its wound is death; the devil, like a roaring lion, says St. Peter, is always on the watch, seeking whom he may devour. Our deliverance from such enemies is the effect of God's special grace, which, |