<'Onld not fRil to know of Persia, ancl it even .A.flerioard I rore up, and did th6 ki11g'B did not require more than a knowledge of b11.Binus. We have no distinct evidence of the peiet, and ordinary powore of political what the business w11.11 that took Daniel to for<>caet. to BC'C that Cyrus might, and pro• Susa, if he wae there in reality, and not bably would, found a world-empire. He mC'rely in vision: but we may surmise that it knew of the Greeks: there were Greeks in was about the advance of Cyrus. Elam and the army of N<>bnohndnPzzar. Moreover, Media were both embraced in the dominion we learn from Herodotus (i. 77) that Nabu- of Cyrus very c.>.nrly. Cyrus had overthrown nahid Labvnetus had made an allin.nce with the Umman-llfanda, and delfrcred Dabylon. Crmeus, in" order to cheok the advance of At that time there seems to have been some- Cnus. We know from Herodotus (i. 26, 27) what of a rapprochement between Nabu- tliat Crrnsns enbdued all the Greek cities in ne.hid and Cyrus ; but at the time before us, A8iR lllinor. To Daniel, who possibly had Cyrus must have begun to realize hie destiny, favoured this alliance with the Western and possibly would not bo easy to treiit monarch, the King of Javan would mean, with. Daniel miiy have been plenipoten- not Alexander the Great, ae it means to us, tiary of Babylon at the court of Cyrus, but Crmsus. Bot hie hopes that Babylon endeavouring to secure o. treaty. At the will be delivered by tbe help of CrCllBUS are same time, o.we.re tho.t C?Clleus, tho rival of shown to be groundless, by tbe intimation Cyrus, might be called in, he continues the that it will be '' for many dnyB." The negotiation. I tDM astonished at tho intimation that he had made to Belshn.zza.r, '1iBiOl'I, but none understood it. The ideo. of the interpretation of the inscription on of the word tmnelo.ted "o.stonished " is the pabce wall, <lid not necessarily, in his "benumbed;" it may be exegetic of the mind, militate against the hope that repent- first clause, explaining the cause of the ance might lead to respite. Daniel may fainting and subsequent eicknees. It is have made use of political expedients to cleo.r that Daniel did not rcge.ru. the com- help in the reenlt he wished. m11nd "to guard uno (satham) the vision" Yer. 27.-A.nd I Daniel fainted, and was as implying tho.t he should keep it secret. sick certain days ; afterw&rd I rose np, and We see, as we sa.id above, that hie com• did the king' ■ business ; and I W&S as- pla.int is that no one understood the vision. tonished at the vision, but none understood Behrmann maintains tho.t r:?!? (maybecn), it. The Septuagint omits "fainted," but "to understand," ought to be tmnslo.ted otherwise agrees with the above. Theer "me.rked," "observed," but JIJ: would be the dotion evidently has had the Massoretic natural verb to use in such o. connection, text before him ; but he hae not understood, not 1':!· Hitzig expliiins this by e:iying, and ha.s slavishlv rendered it word for word. The Peshitta ripreeents also a text prao- "He ho.d imparted tho vision to no one." tica.lly identical with that of the Masso- If Daniel had indulged in statements of that retes. Jerome also agrees with the received kind, the work before us would not have text ; be renders the last clause, non erat qui inaugurated a new form of literature. Pro- intcrpretaretur. That Daniel should faint, fessor Beve.n's interpretation is as fnl'- nnd remain sick for de.ye-" many de.ye," fetcbed, "And I was no understnnder says the LXX.-ie quite in accordance with thereof." The example he brings forward what we might imagine to be the natural of ver. 5 is not to the purpose, because effect of intercourse with the spiritual world. the distinction between the first person and The went.a.I strain and the intense excite- the third is too great. Moses Stuart has ment illcident upon such an occurrence the sa,me view. would neceesarily produce a ree.ction.
HOMILETICS. Vere. 1-14.-The triumph of evi!. L THE DABK'. BIDE OF THE ~nIUMPR OF EVIL. Evil is sometimes not only powerful, but asce~dant and dominant, apparent]! sweeping all before it. 1. Evil is destru.cttve. . ~mgdoma under the _sway of evil become mutually destructive. ~he successive_ v~s1ons of the world~mpHee represent them with increasingly destructive character1st1c~. The fir~t bri?gs before us n. monstrous image of incongruous elements, but with ~ certain umty and peac~ful relation of parts (eh. ii.). The second shows us a. series of ravenou~. beasts, wl11~h, however, are not represented as all fighting ~ne with another (eh. vu.) •. The t~ud introduces us to animals, by nature peaceful, 1n fierce mutually destructive conf11ct. 'l'hue as the knowledae of the evil kinadoms grows, they are seen to be more dt11tructive, even in their most peaceful relations. The more we see of evil the more Cl!. Vtfl. 1-27.] THE BOOK OF DANIEL.