night succeeded the anxiety of the day; and distress of soul prevented the refreshment of the body. Nor is there any doubt, but on some occasions, God has caused a sleepless night, in order to effect some design of providence: For (Esther, vi. 1) when the Jews were almost at the verge of extirpation by the craft and wickedness of Haman," on that night could not the king sleep: "But his want of rest was overruled to honour Mordecai, and hence to deliver the Jews from the hands of those who hated them. And the doleful night spent by Darius urged him early to the den to ascertain whether Daniel was alive; and, if he was, to restore him to all his honour and dignity. The intense agony which he felt during the night, impelled him very early in the morning to ascertain the state of his faithful, but persecuted minister; and when he came to the den of lions, he cried with a lamentable, with a doleful and loud voice, such as pains the ear, "O Daniel, servant of the living God, is thy God, whom thou servest continually, able to deliver thee from the lions?" (v. 20).

Here then the Gentile nations had an opportunity of witnessing the power and might of the God of Israel, the one living and true God. As, on a former occasion, he subdued the force of fire, so now, among the same people under a prince of another nation, he tames the ferocity of the most savage animals, he shuts the lions' mouths. As Babylon was the Queen of cities and the mistress of nations, whether governed by Nebuchadnezzar, Darius the Mede, or Cyrus the Persian; so, in that age of the world, she was the most proper place for the true God to exhibit his power and majesty, in vindication of his own dignity and the religion of his suffering people. Nor was this instance of divine interposition in the rescue of Dan

iel, without its effect; it lead Darius to make a decree (v. 26-7) "That in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel: for he is the living God and sted fast forever, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be even unto the end. He delivereth and rescueth, and he worketh signs and wonders in heaven and in earth, who hath delivered Daniel from the power of the lions." But there is no reason to suppose, as some do, that he became a worshipper of the true God only. Idolatry had too deep root in the minds of men to be easily eradicated; and it is most probable, that it was with Darius, as with Nebuchadnezzar, that while he venerated the God of the Jews, he still worshipped and served his own false deities. He was ready to acknowledge the God of the Jews as a God of power and might; but we have not sufficient ground to suppose that he made him the only object of his religious fear and worship. But still such a decree, issued by a monarch so powerful and despotic, would tend to secure the Jews in the exercise of their religion, and to obtain for them esteem and respect. With so mighty a prince for their patron, they would at least be enabled to serve their God with less molestation. And, as "Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian" (v. 28), his influence at court would be a security and defence to his people and nation: in him they would find protection from their enemies, and the means of gaining favour from their sovereign. That providence which had given them over into the hand of the oppressor because of their wickedness, did still raise up for them a deliverer out of themselves; who, like

Joseph in the days of their fathers, should be their friend and guardian in the land of their captivity.

We are now come to what may be called the close of the historical part of the book of Daniel: and as it concludes with mentioning Darius, and Cyrus the Persian, we shall quote what the very learned Prideaux has said respecting Darius, as to who and what he was. Great doubts have been raised by the learned on this subject: but it satisfactorily appears, both from the succinct and learned note of the Authors of the Universal history, and from Prideaux, that Darius was none other than the Cyaxares of Xenophon,—the uncle of Cyrus.

"After the death of Belshazzar, Darius the Mede is said in scripture to have taken the kingdom. For Cyrus, as long as his uncle lived, allowed him a joint title with him in the empire, although it was all gained by his own valour; and out of deference to him yielded him the first place of honour in it. But the whole power of the army, and the chief conduct of all affairs being still in his hand, he only was looked on as the supreme governor of the empire, which he had erected; and therefore there is no notice at all taken of Darius in the canon of Ptolemy, but immediately after the death of Belshazzar, who is there called Nabonadius, Cyrus is placed as the next successor, as in truth and reality he was, the other having no more than the name and the shadow of the sovereignty, excepting only in Media, which was his own proper dominion.

"There are some that will have Darius the Median to have been Nabonadius, the last Babylonish king in the canon of Ptolemy. And there scheme is, that after the death of Evilmerodach, Neriglissar succeeded

only as guardian to Laborosoarchod his son, who was next heir in right of his mother, she having been daughter to Nebuchadnezzar, and that Laborosoarchod was the Belshazzar of the scriptures, who was slain in the night of the impious festival, not by Cyrus, say they, but by a conspiracy of his own people. That the scriptures attribute to him, the whole four years of Belshazzar, which the canon of Ptolemy doth to Neriglissar, or Nericassolassar, as he is there called; because Neriglissar reigned only as guardian for him. And that hence it is, that we hear of the first and the third year of Belshazzar in Daniel, though Laborosoarchod reigned alone after his father's death only nine months. That after his death the Babylonians made choice of Nabonadius who was no way of kin to the family of Nebuchadnezzar, but a Median by descent, and that for this reason only is he called Darius the Median in scripture. As to what they say of Nabonadius not being of kin to the family of Nebuchadnezzar, it must be confessed that the fragments of Megasthenes may give them some authority for it. But as for all the rest it hath no other foundation but the imagination of them that say it. And the whole is contrary to scripture. For, first, the hand writing on the wall told Belshazzar, that his kingdom should be. divided, or rent from him, and be given to the Medes and Persians; and immediately after, the sacred text tells us, that Belshazzar was slain that night, and Darius the Median took the kingdom, who could be none other than Cyaxares king of Media, who in conjunction, with Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon. Secondly, Therefore, Belshazzar must have been the last Babylonish king, and consequently the Nabonadius of Ptolemy. Thirdly, This last king was not a stranger to the family of Nebuchadnezzar, for the sacred text makes him his descendant. Fourthly,

Darius is said to have governed the kingdom by the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be supposed till after the Medes and Persians had conquered that kingdom. Had this Darius been Nabonadius the Babylonish king, he would certainly have governed by the Babylonish laws, and not by the laws of his enemies, the Medes and Persians, who were in hostility against him all his reign, and sought his ruin. Fifthly, Darius is said to have divided his empire into one hundred and twenty provinces, which could not have been true of the Babylonish empire, that never having been large enough for it. But it must be understood of the Persian empire only, which was vastly larger. And afterwards on the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, and of Thrace and India, by Darius Hystaspes, it had seven other provinces added to its former number. And therefore in the time of Esther, it consisted of an hundred twenty and seven provinces. And this having been the division of the Persian empire at that time, it sufficiently proves the former to have been of the same empire also. For, if the Persian empire from India to Ethiopia contained but an hundred and twenty seven provinces, the empire of Babylon alone, which was not the seventh part of the other could not contain an hundred and twenty. The testimony which Scaliger brings to prove Nabonadius to have been a Mede, by descent, and by election made king of Babylon is very absurd. In the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar delivered to the Babylonians, a little before his death concerning their future subjection to the Persians, which is preserved in the fragments of Megasthenes, there are these words: A Persian mule shall come, who, by the help of your own Gods fighting for him, shall bring slavery upon you, whose assistant, or fellow-causer berein, shall be the Mede. By which Mede is plainly