worth, in loc.), we shnll nssume these two kings, notwithRtanding the apparent diversity of their nnmes, to be Cambyses and the Pseudo-Smerdis, the son and pre- tended son, nnd two next successors, of Cyrus. In any case the latter-named letter (ver. 33), if not an exact copy, may be regarded ns a fair sample, of what was sent. Looked at thus from the Jewish side of the question, it was a most formidable pro- duction :-equally so whether we now consider, on the one hand, its writers; or, on the other hand, its contents. I. THE WRITERS. Much of the importance of a letter turns, of course, on this point. Were they (1) persons of note 7 It is evident that they were in this case. " Bishlam, Mithredath, 'l'abeel " ( ver. 7) were clearly well-known names at that time. No one then required to be told who they were. It is also evident that they ,vere (2) persons of much acuteness. They had their letter written in the Syrian or Aramaic language and characters, as being those used (Lange) in Western PerR1a in all official documents. Such a plan, of course, would give their letter all the better chance of perusal. Further, it was so contrived that some of those signing the letter should be (3) men of rank. Every Persian governor (so Herodotus, quoted by Raw- linson) was accompanied to his province by a royal secretary, having an independent authority of his own. These correspond in this instance to the "chancellor'' and the "scribe" who are described in ver. 8 as writing the "letter against Jerusalem." Bish- lam, &c., in all probability, were its concocters and framers; Reburn and Shimshai its official .senders. Both sets appear also to have been ( 4) men of much influence. Mention is made both of them and their" companions." They acted for others besides them- selves ; for others who could be named, but are not. .At the same time, there were others named by them, as persons joining with them in sending this letter, whose names were such as to give it much additional weight. These were men, for example, who, in the matter of origin, represented very various cities, provinces, and races in the wide empire of Persia; such as ancient Erech (Gen. x. 10), mighty Babylon, royal Susa, and others. Yet they were men, again, who, as to recent history and present position, represented only the province from which the letter came, having been brought long ago to where they were by the same kind of imperial authority as that to which they appealed (ver. 10). .All these things made them the right persons to address the ruler of the whole empire respecting a matter affecting the welfare of the whole empire, yet arising exclusively in that province of it in which they all dwPlt. Not only so, these same individuals, as a matter of fact, represented the whole of that province. With the exception of those they wrote about, they were able to speak of themselves as all "the men on that side the river." In a word, numbers, rank, influence, authority, character, origin, situation-the writers of the present letter had all these things on their side. It was, indeed, a great league ; reminding us of what we read of in Ps. lxxxiii. 3-8, and .Acts iv. 27, and (as something to happen hereafter) in Rev. xx. 7-9. In the presence of such a league the temple builders were like the two flocks described in 1 Kings xx. 27 ; or like the disciples when the Saviour said to them as in Matt. x. 16. II. THE CON1'ENTS of the letter. These also were very formidable, because both weighty and well put. They comprised-I. A severe accusation. The returned Jews were described as rebuilding a city always notorious for its evil name-Jerusalem "the rebellious" (ver. 12). Such a charge no chief governor could afford to pass by. Such e. charge, also, in this instance, had e. very plausible look. Situated as the temple was, at the eastern edge of the city heights, the building of its foundation and enclosures (the real work of the men of Jerusalem) might easily be misrepresented as a "making ready" of the "we.lls" of the "city" itself. 2. A plain warning. "In the judgment of us who live on the spot, this thing is even worse than it seems. The building of this rity means, in reality, the building of e. fortress against the king ; and that means, in turn, serious loss of revenue; for no taxes of any sort wilI that city pay, whether in money, or kind, or for using the highways." 3. A shilful apology. Why do we refer at all to so unpleasant a contingency·? Simply as a matter of duty, and because of our loyalty. Having eaten of the king's so.It (margin), being his dependents and subjects (possibly also his cove- n~nted servants, 2 Chron. xiii. 5), we could not see even such possibility of hurt w1th1mt epeaking. 4. .An appeal to history. Besides, the king can judge foa 56 Tll~ BOO:K OF ~ZRA, (en. 1v. 7~18
himself on this subject. He has only to inquire for hitnself in the governmr,nt records, and see what has always been said there about this city. Why in fact if not thus "rebellious," was it ever destroyed? 5. An appeal to reason. , If thU:gs be_ thus, v.:hat mus~ be the consequence-the inevitable consequence of such a city be1 ng again established? Has our warning gone far enough, in reality ? There will not only be rebellion here, but a rival sovereignty ; not only some revenue but a whole province, lost. Such, at any rate (so we assure the kin~), is our fear. ' This subject illustrates-I. The perilous nature of Christ'l,(1,n warfare. All the nei&"hbours of the Jews were against them; all that could be urged was urged agamst them, and in the very best way. It would be difficult to improve the letter before us, considering the purpose in view. So many, so powerful, so subtle always are the enemies of the Church. (Comp. Matt. xxiv. 9 ; Luke xxi. 16, 17 ; Acts xxviii. 22.) Consider also, in a different sphere, Job i. 9-11; ii. 4-6; Rev. xii. 10; and the very meaning of the name Diabolus. 2. The secret of Cliristwn vitality. How has the Church survived all this except by help from above? Could Jerusalem have surrived this present league and letter if left to itself? Comp. "I have reserved to myself," in Rom. xi. 4; 1 Kings xi.x. 18. 3. The proper direction of Christian trust. With such enemies, with such accusers, to whom must we look for defence? Not to other men, not to ourselves, but only to the appointed "Advocate, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John ii. 1). He is more than all that are against us (Num. xiv. 9; Ps. xxvii. 1-3; cxviii. 6). Aleo, being our" propitiation" (1 John ii. 2), he can say more for us than they against us. (Comp. "I have prayed for thee," in Luke xxii. 31, 32; and see Rom. viii. 33, 34; Heh. vii. 25.)