salem by the Romans. Applied to Judah this period must refer therefore to the grant of the sovereignty which was peculiar to that tribe; and which grant, as it remains in equal force with the one given to Abrabam, so it possesses, in an equal degree, the principle of resuscitation, which ere long, like Aaron's rod, shall bud, and blossom, and bear fruit. The next inquiry is, presuming this view of the subject to be correct, from what particular year is this seven times, or 2520 years, in this its second application to be dated ? It may be proper, in the first place, to notice, that as long as the kingdom of Judah stood, the crown did actually continue in the line and family of David. Unlike that of the Ten Tribes, which was continually changing from one family to another, and from one tribe to another, this crown continued in one unbroken line of succession from David to Jehoiakim, the last king who exercised the rights of an independent sovereign. And this succession from father to son included a space of about 450 years; a circumstance unprecedented in the annals of history! Not, indeed, that the kings of Judah were all men who walked after the ways of David, and did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord,—although such a succession of excellent men, in one kingdom, as Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah, men who truly feared God, are no where else to be found seated in one throne;-yet there were some of them— particularly Jehoram, Ahaziah, Ahaz, and Manasseh —who were very wicked men, and who in a very horri ble manner provoked God. In virtue, however, of his oath and promise to David, and because they were the ancestors of Christ, he did not take away the crown for their wickedness. Speaking of Abijam's wicked reign, it is said: "For David's sake did the Lord his God give him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to establish Jerusalem :"* Likewise in 2 Chron. xxi. 7, speaking of Jehoram's great wickedness, the same reason is given why the Lord continued his family on the throne: "Howbeit the Lord would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that he made with David, and as he promised to give a light to him and to his sons for ever." Not indeed, speaking after the manner of men, that this line was not several times in danger of being broken, and indeed destroyed; particularly when Athaliah conspired to murder all the seed royal, and proceeded so far in its accomplishment as to imagine she had actually accomplished her purpose.† And also, in the instance of the confederacy formed by the kings of Syria and Israel ‡ to dispossess Ahaz and his family of the throne, and set up in their place another family, "even the son of Tabeal.§" On both these occasions the house of David seemed to be on the very brink of destruction, but the blessing that was in it saved it; and in these, as well as in every threatened danger, it was preserved up to the time * 1 Kings xv. 4. ↑ See chap. ii. + 2 Kings xi. of Nebuchadnezzar's invasion, when, with the nation in general, it went into captivity. In the consideration of the seventy years' Babylonish captivity, we have seen that there were two commencements from which it is to be datednamely, the years 606 and 588 B. C.: it must, therefore, be somewhere between these two points of time, from whence the loss of this regal and sovereign authority is to be reckoned. I consider that the last independent act of sovereignty exercised by Jehoiakim, the last king of Judah, must have been what is related in 2 Kings xxiv. 1: "In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years: then he turned and rebelled against him." It is then added, in the next verse, that "the Lord sent against him bands of the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it." Now, as Nebuchadnezzar first carried away Judah captive in 606, it would be three years after this, in 603, when Jehoiakim rebelled against him; and it is probable that it was not longer than the following year that he was able to maintain himself against the mighty power of the king of Babylon, and the other nations that came against him. This would bring it to 602 or 601 B. c.; and as he died two or three years afterwards, and his son and successor Jehoiachin was, immediately on his accession, carried captive to Babylon, where he lived many years, it appears to me that it must have been about the time of this year that the last independant act of sovereignty was performed by the rightful king: for Zedekiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar placed upon the throne, could not be considered as the rightful monarch whilst Jehoiachin was living. Besides which he was not an independent monarch, being merely as a satrap, ruling with a delegated power. If this reasoning be correct, then the year 602 or 601 B. C. is the point of time from which to date the loss of the throne by the house of David; and, consequently, after the lapse of the long period of 2520 years, the year 1918 or 1919 after Christ will be the time when it will be again restored to its rightful owner. The difficulty of fixing upon correct epochas from which to date chronological prophetical periods, has always been experienced by every writer on the subject; and that difficulty would have been felt to a greater extent in this instance, had not the attention. been directed to this rebellion of Jehoiakim against Nebuchadnezzar, by Calmet's and other tables of chronology; and likewise been confirmed by a subsequent prophecy of Daniel, which will be hereafter noticed in this chapter, and which will be found to bring the season of "blessedness" to the same termination as the period under consideration. There can therefore be no reason to hesitate in saying that the commencement ought to be dated somewhere about the year 602, at least to within a year: for the first invasion of Nebuchadnezzar being in the year 606, and Jehoiachin being carried captive to Babylon in 600, if Jehoiakim, after three years' allegiance, threw off for a short time Nebuchadnezzar's yoke, he was, for so long a time as he remained unsubdued, exercising the rights of sovereignty; and therefore the commencement of this period cannot be reckoned prior to this time. It is also clear it cannot be reckoned after Jehoiachin was carried into captivity; for no independent act of sovereignty was ever afterwards exercised. It therefore seems extremely probable that 602 or 601 B. c. is its correct date. If, then, the restoration of the house of David to the throne of Judah is to be calculated from this yearand which great event, according to this hypothesis, will take place a. D. 1918 or 1919-it remains to be considered, WHO IS THE RIGHTFUL HEIR TO THIS HONOURED THRONE? The genealogy of the royal house of David, from Jehoiakim downwards, is given as follows in the first chapter of Matthew, from the 12th to the 16th verses: "And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; and Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." Christ was thus "legally descended from the kings of Judah, though he was not naturally descended from them. He was both legally and naturally descended from David. He was naturally descended from Nathan, the son of |