modern Arab capital of Sook-ess-Shookh on the Euphrates). Two of these cylinders have already reached me, and I have found them to contain a memorial of the works executed by Nabonidus (the last king of Babylon), in Southern Chaldæa. They describe among other things the restoration of temples, originally built by the Chaldæan monarchs at least 1000 years previously,* and further notice the re-opening of canals dug by Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar. The most important fact, however, which they disclose is, that the eldest son of Nabonidus was named Bel-shar-ezar,† and that he was admitted by his father to a share in the government. This name is undoubtedly the Belshazzar (b) of Daniel, and thus furnishes us with a key to the explanation of that great historical problem which has hitherto defied solution. We can now understand how Belshazzar, as joint king with his father, may have been governor of Babylon, when the city was attacked by the combined forces of the Medes and Persians, and may have perished in the assault which followed; while Nabonidus, leading a force to the relief of the place, was defeated, and obliged to take refuge in the neighbouring town of Borsippa (or Birs-i-Nimrud), capitulating, after a short resistance, and being subsequently assigned, according to Berosus, an honourable retirement in Carmania. By the discovery, indeed, of the name of Bel-shar-ezar, as appertaining to the son of Nabonidus, we are, for the first time, enabled to reconcile authentic history (such as it is related by Herodotus and Berosus, and not as we find it in the romance of Xenophon or the fables of Ctesias) with the inspired record of Daniel, which forms one of the bulwarks of our religion.

"It may further be of interest to your numerous readers if I append a brief sketch of the memorials of the later Babylonian monarchs (subsequent to the taking of Nineveh) which are now available for the verification of this portion of history. Of the time of Nabopolassar there are a few tablets in the British Museum which were found at Warka, but they furnish no historical data. Of his son Nebuchadnezzar (or . Nabukudurussur, as his name is written in Babylonian) the monuments are most extensive. The slab in the Museum of the East India House gives a minute account of the various works executed by the king at neighbouring ruins on the left bank of the Euphrates, that really marked the site of Accad, and which further induced the Talmudists to apply to the same spot the tradition of the Exodus of Abraham. There is not the slightest authority for the pretension of the Syrian fathers that Ur of the Chaldees is to be sought at Orfa or Edessa, a city, indeed, within 1000 miles of which the Chaldees never could have approached except as conquerors."

* "I have already found four of those kings named upon Mr Taylor's cylin ders, the earliest being the king whose name is stamped on all the primitive bricks of Um-Qeer, Niffer, and Warka, and whose signet ring, figured by Ker Porter, pl. 79, 6, is, I believe, now deposited in the British Museum."

+ “This name is expressed by three monograms—the first signifying the god Bel, the second Shar, ‘a king,' and the third being the same sign which terminates the names of Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, Nergal-sharezer, &c. When we see Nergal-charezer contracted into Neriglissar, we need not wonder at the change from Bel-shar-ezar to Belshazzar."

wars.

Babylon and Borsippa-further details, referring to other parts of Babylonia, are furnished by a cylinder, now in the possession of Sir Thomas Phillips, and the inscription upon which was published a few years back by Grotefend at Hanover. Materials, in fact, exist in the museums of England, France, and Germany, for compiling a full account of the domestic history of Nebuchadnezzar, though unfortunately up to the present time no record has been discovered of his foreign The discovery, however, of such a record will, it is to be hoped, reward the exertions now making by the Assyrian Fund Society. Of Nebuchadnezzar's son, Evil-merodach, the only relic which I know is a weight in the form of a duck, brought by Mr Layard from Nineveh, and now lying in the British Museum (Layard's "Nineveh and Babylon," p. 600). Many bricks have been lately found at Babylon by the French Commission, bearing the name and titles of Neriglissar, or Nergal-sharezer, who succeeded his brother-in-law, Evil-merodach. His genealogy is not given, but he bears the same title of Rab-mag (not however certainly with the signification of "Chief of the Magi”)* as in Jeremiah xxxix. 3, 13. The son of Nergal-sharezer, Laborosoarchod, who reigned only nine months, has left no records; but of Nabonidus, the last king, who, according to Berosus, was placed on the throne by a revolution at Babylon,† we are now finding relics in all quarters. The walls of Babylon, on the river face, erected by this king, were completely exposed during a recent fall of the river, and the bricks of which the wall was composed were found to be uniformly stamped with his name and titles. Tablets also, dated at various periods of his reign up to the sixteenth year (according to history he reigned seventeen years), have been found at Borsippa and at Warka; and the cylinders and clay barrels, recently excavated by Mr Taylor amid the ruins of Ur, promise to furnish a complete record of his domestic history. His eldest son, as I have stated, was named Bel-shar-ezar (or Belshazzar); and that this prince or joint-king was really slain at the taking of Babylon by Cyrus, we may infer from finding in the inscription of Bisitun that the impostor who caused the Babylonians to revolt against Darius Hystaspes, and who personated the heir to the throne, did not take the name of the eldest son of Nabonidus, Bel-shar-ezar, but of the second (?) son, Nabukudurussur. It is sufficiently remarkable that while the Assyrian cylinders and monumental inscriptions are especially devoted to a record of the monarch's foreign conquests, and

"There were certainly no magi at Babylon in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, nor could a noble of the Babylonian Court have adopted the title of chief of an heretical sect. The word, moreover, is not in the plural number, nor was it applied by the LXX. or any of the subsequent translators to the magi. The title in Babylonian is usually written rubu emga, of which, however, I know not the meaning. Magush, a Magian and exotic word, introduced into Babylonian under the Achæmenians was written quite differently."

"Nabonidus (or Nabu-nit) is always called in the inscriptions the son of Nabu-dirba, who had the title of Rubun-emga in common with Nergalsharezer."

"See Berosus, in Josephus against Apion,"

merely speak incidentally of his domestic history, the custom at Babylon seems to have been exactly the reverse. A genealogical or bona fide historical document has never yet been found in Babylonia or Chaldæa, while geographical, statistical, sacerdotal, and architectural descriptions abound."

Earth Man's Dominion.

"Is it, I would ask, without a distinct and adequate reason that the Lord Jesus Christ is called 'the second Adam?' Surely the expression comprises a fuller meaning than that generally assigned to it. It implies indeed a similarity of relation between Adam and his descendants, and the Lord and His redeemed: a similarity of federal connexion between themselves, and the person dependent upon their actions. 'As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.'—The transmission of life is by the one, the transmission of death by the other. This is a great truth, momentous in all its consequences; but is it the whole truth? Is not Christ the antitype of Adam in another and very important sense? To Adam this material world was given as an inheritance, an empire over which he was to exercise a kingly power. The Mosaic record is expressed in these terms—' So God created man in his own image: in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be ye fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'

Both

"This original grant to Adam is referred to in after times by David, in the eighth Psalm; and the dominion of which he there speaks, is by the Apostle Paul ascribed in its full extent to Christ (Heb. ii.) as the second Adam. The creation of Adam after the IMAGE of God implies, therefore, the sovereignty to which he was heir. The image of God has been too exclusively limited to the idea of moral rectitude: but it comprises dominion as well as rectitude; hence in the renovated world, the saints are described as 'kings' equally with 'priests unto God.' these blessings, rectitude and dominion, Adam forfeited by his transgressions. Satan, the terrific prince of darkness, subtle in his counsel, as well as mighty in his strength, immediately usurped the crown as it fell from Adam's head, and seized the dominion over the earth which Adam had forfeited. From that time he has maintained a despotic sway over mankind, and by our Lord Himself is admitted to be the king, though an usurper, over the present world: for when our Lord entered into personal conflict with Satan, it was in that character that He regarded him. Satan pointed out to Him the kingdoms of the world,' and expressed his willingness to yield Him a delegated sovereignty, if He would allow him the claim of superiority. 'All these will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.' Our Lord abhorred the blasphemy, but did not deny the usurpation."-Noel.

Effect of Preaching the Lord's Coming.

"THE effects of preaching the near approach of this grand and awful event have been great and good; it has been the means of bringing thousands from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God; and we have the testimony of thousands among all denominations, that were but nominal professors of religion, and are now made holy and devoted Christians through the instrumentality of the doctrine which we believe and teach. If this doctrine does not make men search the Scriptures, I cannot conceive what would. Another effect which I would mention is: in every place where I have been, the most pious, devoted, and loving members of the churches do most readily embrace the views thus proclaimed; while the worldling professor, the Pharisee, the bigot, the proud, haughty, and selfish, scoff at and ridicule the doctrine of the second coming of Christ. This doctrine brings out scoffers, and tests and tries the disposition and character of professors of religion, and brings all the energies of Christians into exercise; confirms the hope, and brightens the prospects of all true believers who look for, and love the appearing of Christ; it uncovers the secret works of the devil-it exposes the unbelief, hypocrisy, and pride of the Church -it alarms a guilty world of their danger, and apprises them of the coming judgments of God. And these are not the only effects produced by a proclamation of this glorious doctrine. It destroys sectarianism, and establishes Christian unity, peace, love, and holiness. Those who have received fully this blessed truth, lose all sectarian prejudices, and rest wholly on the Bible as the rule of their faith and practice; calling no man master in any of these matters, but considering all true believers as one family, and children of one Father, dwelling together in love and unity as brethren in the Lord. All this, and much more, has been the result of preaching the speedy coming of Christ and the judgment day."-Anon.

Acts i. 9-11.

"THE next text to which we call attention is that remarkable one in Acts i. 9-11. We must, however, before coming directly to the subject of it, notice the preceding circumstances. Our Lord had not only accomplished His ministry among His disciples prior to His crucifixion, but after His resurrection He was with them 'forty days,' instructing them in the things pertaining to the kingdom of God;' and 'He opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures.' After all this, when they therefore were come together, they asked of him, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?' (Acts i. 6.) Let it be recollected that this question immediately preceded His ascension into heaven, and after the full instruction He had given them about the kingdom. It is not to be supposed, therefore, that they were mistaken about the matter of the kingdom; and if they were, it is not likely our Lord would have left them in that mistake. They knew the kingdom was to be given to Christ, not only

from the prophecies already noticed in the Old Testament, but by a still more remarkable one in Ezekiel xxi. 27, where God, speaking of the kingdom, says, 'I will overturn, overturn, overturn it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.' The disciples wished to know whether our Lord intended 'at this time' to fulfil that prophecy. With respect to the matter of the kingdom they were right; with respect to the time, our Lord told them it was not for them 'to know the times and seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power.' In these circumstances, and at that moment, 'when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven' (Acts i. 9-11).

“Now, imagine you stand there with the apostles, with your eyes uplifted to heaven, seeing your blessed Lord as He goes up, till your sight is intercepted by the clouds. Would you doubt but that it was the real person of your Lord?—While the mind is thus absorbed, two shining ones address you, and say, 'This same Jesus shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.' We ask, could you understand any thing else than just what the words express, viz., that the same identical person, in His visible form, would 'return' again to the earth? Would you have ever dreamed that you were to understand only a spiritual coming of your blessed Lord? Impossible! If there ever was a spiritual coming, it must have been on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost fell upon the disciples. Did they understand this to be their Lord so coming in like manner as he went into heaven? Let Peter instruct us (Acts ii. 32, 33): 'This same Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.' This language is explicit. It was not our Lord coming in like manner,' &c. No-He was 'exalted,' and in His state of exaltation He had ' received' that which 'He hath shed forth.' Surely, He did not receive Himself, and shed forth Himself. That this was not the fact, Peter tells us distinctly (chap iii. 20, 21) when he says, God'shall send Jesus Christ, whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.' Those times have not yet arrived; therefore this same Jesus' has 'not' yet so come. Hence, any spiritual application of this coming of our Lord is a 'wresting the Scriptures;' and we fear some may do it to their own destruction.'

·

"This point established, that the first chapter of Acts teaches a literal and personal coming of our Lord, we must understand the apostles, in every instance where they speak of the coming of our Lord, after He was taken up from them, as referring to that coming of which they were