ffered to the decipherer of the handwriting on the wall. He should be made "the third ruler in the kingdom."

In the case of Persia, as with Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon, the confirmation of the biblical allusions to history, government, and manners, is ample. At the outset, however, we meet with a perplexity, attaching, singularly enough, to another personage connected with the fall of Babylon, of which we have just spoken. It is strange that two long-vexed questions of history, one of them, even now, partly unsolved, should concern the two dynasties affected by that event, the conquering as well as the conquered. After the victorious siege, well authenticated as the work of Cyrus the Persian, we find Darius the Mede apparently the conquering hero, according to the book of Daniel, for he at once steps forth as the principal character among the victors, and we read of what "it pleased" him to do. Careful attention, however, shows that Daniel's statements are consistent with allusions in and out of the Bible to Cyrus, and with the pointings of secular history, confessedly obscure though they are, towards a colleague of his. We may then believe that "Darius the Median took (received) the kingdom" as a viceroy, with which the first verse of the ninth chapter entirely agrees, where he is spoken of as "made king over the realm of the Chaldeans." From the Persian supremacy over Babylon until the prophecy of Malachi is a period of about a century and a quarter, of which a little more than a century is covered by the books of Ezra, Esther, Nehemiah. Ezra mentions the Persian kings in the following order: Cyrus, Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, Darius, Artaxerxes. This may correspond with the list as given by profane authorities: Cyrus,Cambyses, Smerdis, Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes, on the sufficiently authenticated supposition of more than one name borne by the second and third in the list, or of their designation in Ezra by royal titles, and in the profane writers by personal names, while the absence of Xerxes from Ezra is accounted for by the long gap in his history, from the sixth year of Darius, B.C. 515, to the seventh year of Artaxerxes, B.C. 458. But within this interval falls

the book of Esther, the scene of which is at the court of Xerxes, for whose identity with the Ahasuerus (compare, as a royal title, Pharaoh) of Esther, Rawlinson adduces such critics as DeWette, Gesenius, Hävernick, and Dean Milman, and assigns the exact Semitic equivalency of the Hebrew Achashwerosh with the Persian Khshayarsha, which the Greeks rendered by Xerxes, together with the notes of time given in the Hebrew narrative. As to the characteristics and actions ascribed to him in the Bible: "Proud, self-willed, amorous, careless of contravening Persian customs; reckless of human life, yet not actually bloodthirsty; impetuous, facile, changeable, the Ahasuerus of Esther corresponds in all respects to the Greek portraiture of Xerxes." Passing over the very satisfactory refutation of alleged errors and inaccuracies in this part of Scripture, we give the American editor's pregnant quotation from Prof. Stuart, at the close of this seventh chapter of the volume: "The fact that the feast of Purim has come down to us from time almost immemorial, proves as certainly that the main events in the book of Esther happened, as the Declaration of Independence and the celebration of the Fourth of July prove that we separated from Great Britain and became an independent nation. The book of Esther is an essential document to explain the feast of Purim." This name, Dr. Hackett remarks, which means lots, was given to the feast ironically by the Jews, with reference to Haman's frustrated conspiracy against them (Esther ix. 24-26; 2 Macc. xv. 36).

Such is a glance over the field of this subject, in which our notice has rested briefly upon some of its more general and conspicuous features. When it has been traversed, as we hope it may be by many, under the guidance of this admirable work, we believe that it will not be possible to dissent from Prof. Rawlinson's estimate of the force of the whole agreement between the sacred and the profane sources. It is, first, the death-blow of the legendary or mythical view of the Old Testament narratives, as the fictions of moral teachers to inculcate moral truths. It being clear that the narrative

deals with real persons and real facts, we are bound, in the second place, to accept it without reserve, because the miraculous portions are as indissolubly connected with those ordinary portions which are upborne by the tests of historical criticism, as was Antonio's blood with Shylock's pound of flesh. A final conclusion is, that the scriptures were written, for the most part, by eye-witnesses of what is recorded. If so, nothing but a truthful intention is needed to render them competent witnesses, and no one will now deny them this. Prof. Rawlinson quotes Strauss, as saying: "It would, most unquestionably, be an argument of decisive weight in favor of the credibility of the biblical history, could it indeed be shown that it was written by eye-witnesses"; and adds, as his closing words: "This is exactly what the minute accuracy of the sacred writers, and their close agreement with contemporary records and the best profane historians, shows almost to a certainty. The credibility of the biblical history would thus seem to be, even according to rationalism itself, established." The final note in the American edition consists of a most fitting suggestion as to the even greater force with which the line of argument that has been followed may be applied to the New Testament, closing with the remark: "It is no exaggeration to say, that the well-informed reader, who will study carefully the book of the Acts, and compare the incidental notices to be found there with the geography and the political history of the times, and with the customs of the different countries in which the scene of the transactions is laid, will receive an impression of the writer's fidelity and accuracy equal to that of the most forcible treatises on the truth of Christianity."

We linger to felicitate professional scholars and students, sober, religious, thinking men and women, Sabbath-school teachers and scholars,-all who respect and desire knowledge, -on the treasure here offered to them. It is much to possess a condensed statement, on so important a theme, of the studies of such men as Professors Rawlinson and Hackett, of Sir Henry Rawlinson, of Sir J. G. Wilkinson,

the distinguished writer upon the Egyptians, and of Dr. Pusey, with the great erudition of his Lectures upon Daniel and of his Commentaries upon the Minor Prophets. That which could otherwise be had only in costly works, and which would have to be searched for with great outlay of time, as well as money, is here presented in compact and attractive form. Of course, it will take time and thought to avail one's self of this distilled lore; but those who will give them may feel that they are placed in communication with the last results of Christian scholarship.

ARTICLE VIII.

CORRESPONDENCE.

Letter from Halle.

Ir is known to our readers that about the time of Professor Tholuck's Semicentennial Jubilee in Halle, measures were adopted for raising a fund, as a memorial of his great services in the cause of Christian education. The proceeds of that fund were to be devoted to the relief of indigent students of theology. Much good has resulted from those measures. It is now proposed to make an enlarged, or rather a new, contribution in honor of the distinguished Professor, and to make additional arrangements for the education of young men who have the requisite qualifications for usefulness in the Christian ministry. These arrangements affect not German students only, but also English and American young men, who desire to pursue their studies at Halle. A friend of Professor Tholuck, and a laborer in the cause of Christian education, writes substantially as follows: We could make an arrangement whereby several English or American students might, each for one or two years, find a home here. They need pay but a small, almost a nominal, sum for their board, lodgings, and the supervision of a competent instructor. Some Board of Directors connected with a Theological Institution in America, might receive a deed, entitling them always to nominate the candidates for receiving the income of the fund which is contributed by the friends of that American Seminary. Several Seminaries may thus enlarge the usefulness of their own alumni. Certain academical and theological attainments might be required as a condition of receiving such a nomination from the American Directors. In this manner much might be done towards furnishing the theological chairs of American Seminaries with accomplished occupants. Many young pastors, also, who desire to spend a year or two in Germany for the purpose of qualifying themselves more thoroughly for their ministerial work, might pursue their studies here at a very small expense. They would have some peculiar religious privileges in their German home. It would be arranged for their spiritual as well as their intellectual profit.

Many American, as well as English, Pastors and Professors, now living, owe a vast debt of gratitude to Professor Tholuck. Some, now among the dead, have acknowledged their special obligation to him. Some have been radically changed in their religious life by his instrumentality. Having received signal favors from him as a lecturer or a writer, many will be happy to aid in erecting the proposed monument to the excellent VOL. XXXI. No. 121.

23