lation which had been predicted in respect to that ancient capital. Indeed, it soon drew away the business and the wealth of the old city so completely, that it was itself sometimes denominated Babylon.

We have already mentioned the first triumphant entrance of Seleucus, when the gates of ancient Babylon were promptly opened to receive him. With that event, in the year 312 B. C., commences the era of the Seleucidæ, or of the princes of the race of Seleucus. It is also frequently called the era of the Greeks, or the Syro-Macedonian era. It was the general era employed in the Grecian states of Asia, and in the empire founded by Seleucus and his successors.* The Arabians denominate this epoch the era of the two horned; that is, of Seleucus the powerful; for on some coins he is represented with two horns of an ox on his head ;—the horns, doubtless, being intended as emblems of power. The Jews had no other epoch until A. D. 1040; when, being expelled from Asia, by the Caliphs, and scattered about in various countries of Europe, they began to date from the creation.

The usage among the Jews is exemplified by the following passage in the first book of the Maccabees, 1: 7-10. "So Alexander reigned twelve years, and then died. And his servants bare rule, every one in his place. And after his death they all put crowns upon themselves; so did their sons after them many years: and evils were multiplied in the earth. And there came out of them a wicked root, Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king, who had been an hostage at Rome; and he reigned in the hundred and thirty and seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks."

We have, then, in this sketch, glanced at four distinct dominions, which might well stand forth, with peculiar prominency, in the visions of a Jewish prophet at Babylon, or at Shushan, in the days of the long and mournful exile: 1. The Babylonian or Chaldee-Babylonian ;

2. The Medo-Persian;

3. That of Alexander;

4. That of the Greeks," his successors, especially the Seleucida and the Lagida, or princes of the race of Seleucus and of Ptolemy, the son of Lagus.

* Smith's Chronological Eras, p. 93.

That the fourth empire was that of the successors of Alexander (among whom Seleucus was pre-eminent), appears from the fact, that Daniel himself distinguishes between the kingdom or dominion of Alexander and that of his successors. In chap. 11: 3, it is said, "A mighty king shall stand up, and shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will." Then, in the fourth verse, it is immediately added, "And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken; and shall be divided towards the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others besides those," that is, besides his posterity.

The Roman empire did not succeed, or come in the place of, the three former monarchies. Extensive countries lying beyond the Euphrates, formerly constituting a large and important part of those empires, were never conquered by the Romans. That a new empire may be said to have succeeded some other, it is not sufficient that this new one be extensive and powerful, but it is requisite also that the later overcome or swallow up the earlier. Thus the Babylonians, when they ceased to exercise authority, gave way to the victorious Persians. And the Persian empire could not be said to be destroyed, before Alexander the Great, having subdued the Persians, transferred the empire to himself.

The emperor Augustus, in his will, which, after his death, was publicly read in the Senate, "bequeathed to his successors the advice of confining the empire within those limits which nature seemed to have placed as its permanent bulwarks and boundaries; on the west, the Atlantic ocean; on the north, the Rhine and the Danube; on the east, the Euphrates; and towards the south, the sandy deserts of Arabia and Africa."* The advice was followed by the more prudent of the emperors; and its wisdom was taught to the others by bitter experience.

Over the regions beyond the Euphrates, Seleucus and his descendants continued to reign for nearly seventy years. Then a successful revolt, under Arsaces, led to the establishment of the Parthian empire, which continued till A. D. 229; when a rebellion was excited, and a Persian dynasty was founded by Adschir-Berbekan, or Artaxerxes, who subjected

*See Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. I.

all Central Asia to his dominion. This race of Persian sovereigns continued to reign, until Persia, in the year of our Lord 636, was attacked by the Caliph Omar, and became a prey to the Arabs and Turks.*

Now, it is most certain, that the wars with these Parthians and Persians were, as a whole, unsuccessful. They were even signally disastrous to the Romans. Trajan, it is true, once achieved a splendid victory over the Parthians; but his success was only temporary What he had gained was soon lost, partly by himself, and partly by Adrian, his immediate

successor.

How, then, could the Roman empire be considered as one of those which were to succeed what had been the MedoPersian?

If there be no special reason to the contrary, it is natural to suppose that the fourth empire should succeed the third, as the third had succeeded the second, and the second the first; that is, in the same age, and not after the lapse of many

ages.

Some of the imagery which is employed to set forth these successive kingdoms or empires, is such as indicates a very close connection. And this part of the imagery must be allowed to modify and interpret that part which is less definite. The image which Nebuchadnezzar saw, presents such an idea of continuity, as suggests that the succession was, in each case, direct and entire. But the empire which had succeeded that of the Medo-Persian, never, as such, passed over, directly, to the Romans. Those parts of it which, at length, came under Roman sway, came under it, as distinct acquisitions, and at times far remote from each other. We have already seen, too, that it was only some parts of it that ever yielded to Roman power, and these not the parts which, in the time of Daniel, would naturally be considered the most essential.

Besides, we have already seen that Daniel himself distinguishes between the empire of Alexander and that of his successors. He says, expressly, that Alexander's kingdom shall be broken; and shall be divided towards the four winds of heaven, and not to his posterity;-shall be plucked up, even for others.

* Rotteck's Allgemeine Geschichte, vol. II, p. 128. VOL. VII.-NO. XXV.

2

Words could hardly express more strongly the termination of Alexander's empire. And if this terminated with himself, it must not be confounded with that of his Greek successors. His empire, as such, stood pre-eminent and alone. It was the third. Hence theirs was the fourth. It had passed over directly and entirely to them. And viewed thus, as a whole, in their hands, it corresponded well with the prediction in Dan. 7: 23. "The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces." It was different from the other empires; for it was not under the sway of one individual, or of one dynasty, but of several; and especially, at one time, of four, and, at a later period, of two. It was strong as iron, forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things."* And yet it was "divided," and became partly strong, and partly "broken." It was no longer the kingdom of Alexander, although it was equally extensive. It had passed into other hands than those of his posterity. It was no longer united, although its several parts had many characteristics in common. It was divided among Greek commanders that had been trained in the ambitious and bloody school of the great conqueror. The earth trembled and groaned under the collisions, the long-continued and destructive wars which ensued. It was, as it is repeatedly denominated in the Maccabees and other ancient writings, the kingdom of the Greeks; and in reference to the four confederated chieftains, among whom, at a memorable period of its history, it was distributed, it is mentioned collectively by Daniel (8: 23) as "their kingdom."

Here is a kingdom expressly named by the sacred writer himself, distinct from that of Alexander, and immediately succeeding his; a kingdom possessing the characteristics predicted as belonging to the fourth; a kingdom peculiarly prominent and terrible to the Jews, as threatening their holy religion with utter extermination, at a most dark and perilous period before the coming of the Messiah. Why, then, should we look elsewhere for the fourth kingdom?

What is said respecting the ten horns of the fourth beast, in Dan. 7: verses 7 and 8, compared with the 24th verse

(from which it is evident that they indicate ten kings, and not ten kingdoms), corresponds with the facts as they occurred in the kingdom of the Greeks, that is, by way of eminence, in the dynasty established by Seleucus.

"The fourth beast.... devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it; and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things." In the 24th verse, it is added, "The ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, [or former ones,*] and he shall subdue three kings.”

Such were the vision and its explanation; and the following is a list of the kings or aspirants to the crown of that dynasty, before Antiochus Epiphanes ascended the throne:

1. Seleucus I. Nicator, founder of the dynasty, 312 B. C. 2. Antiochus I. Soter . . from 279 B. C. to 260.

9. Ptolemy IV. Philomator, king of Egypt.

10. Demetrius I. Soter, son of Seleucus Philopator.

After a residence of twelve or thirteen years at Rome, as a hostage, Antiochus Epiphanes, the younger brother of Seleucus Philopator, was exchanged for the king's only son Demetrius, who was now sent to that city in his place. While the son and the brother of the king were thus absent, the brother not having yet returned, Heliodorus, the royal treasurer, seized the opportunity to remove the king secretly by poison, and elevate himself to the throne.

Ptolemy Philomator, king of Egypt, also aspired to the throne of the deceased Seleucus Philopator, as being his nephew.