Notes on the Old and New Testaments

revolted at it,.and they refused. For the probable reasons why Daniel was not in cluded in the number, see Note on ver. 12.

9. 0 kiiiy, lire for ever. A customary form of address to a monarch, implying that long life was regarded as an eminent blessing. See Notes on ch. ii. 4.

10. 11. Thou hunt made a decree, <tc. See vs. 4, 5. As the decree included 'every man' who heard the sound of the music, it of course embraced the Jews, whatever religious scruples they might have. Whether their scruples, however, were known at the time, is not certain j or whether they would have been re garded if known, is no more certain.

12. There are certain Jeics whom thou hast net over the province <>f Habylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-neyo. Ch. ii. 49. It is quite remarkable that the name of Daniel does not occur in the re cord of this transaction, and that he does not appear to have been involved in the difficulty. Why he was not, cannot now be certainly known. We may be sure that he would not join in the worship of the idol, and yet it would seem, as Nebu chadnezzar had summoned all the high officers of the realm to be present, (ver. 2,) that he must have been summoned also. The conjecture of Prideaux (Con. I. 222,) is not improbable, that he occupied a place of so much influence and authority, and enjoyed in so high degree the favour of the king, that they did not think it prudent to begin with him, but rather preferred at first to bring the accusation against subordinate officers. If they were condemned and punished, consistency might require that he should be punished also. If he had been involved at first in 16* the accusation, his high rank, and his favour with the king, might have screened some eighteen years had elapsed since the transaction referred to in ch. ii. occurred,

(See Notes on ch. iii. 1,) and Daniel may have been employed in some remote part of the empire on public business. Comp.

'they have not placed towards thee the decree;' that i?, they have not made any account of it; they have paid no attention to it. *[ They serve not thy yodn. Perhsips it was inferred from the fact that they would not pay religious homage to this idol, that they did not serve the gods at all that were acknowledged by the king; or possibly this may have been known from what had occurred before. It may have been well understood in Babylon, that the Hebrews worshipped Jehovah

14 Nebuchadnezzar spake and and dulcimer, and all kinds of music, said unto them, Is it atrue, 0 Sha- ye fall b down and worship the imdrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, do j age which I have made; c well: but not ye serve rny gods, nor worship the if ye worship not, ye shall be r-ast golden image which I have set up? the same hour into the midst of a

15 Now if ye be ready that at burning fiery furnace; and dwho is what time ye hear the sound of the that God that shall deliver you out

means wrath. Every thing that wo learn they could make an apology for their of this monarch shows that he was a man I conduct. The Chaldee word— *ny— ocof violent passmns, and that he vms easily i fa } T. rendered excited, though he was susceptible also to deep impressions on religious subjects. '

There was much here to rouse his rage. His command to worship the image was positive. It extended to all who were summoned to its dedication. Their re fusal was a,n act of positive disobedience, and it seemed necessary that the laws \terminedpurpose not to worship my gods? should be vindicated. As a man and a | Have you deliberately made up your monarch, therefore, it was not unnatural j minds to this, and do you mean to abide

1 by this resolution?' That this is the meaning, is apparent from the fact that immediately proposes to try them on that the anger of the monarch should be thus enkindled. fl Commanded to bring Shadrach, <fcc. It is remarkable that' he did not order them at once to be slain, as he did the magicians who could \ tunity to comply with his command to not interpret his dream, ch. ii. 12. This worship the image if they would, or to shows that he had some respect still for these men, and that he was willing to hear what they could say in their defence. It is proper, also, to recognize the provi- show whether they were finally resolved not to do it. 1[ Do not ye serve my gmh? It was one of the charges against them that they did not do it, ver. 12.

dence of God in inclining him to this course, that their noble reply to his ques- I time, &c.

14. Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it trite. Marg., ' of purpose;'

15. Now if ye be ready that at what At the very time; on the very It would seem probable from this that the ceremonies of the consecra tion of the image were prolonged for a considerable period, so that there was still an opportunity for them to unite in the that is, have you done this intentionally? service if they would. The supposition

Jacchiades says that the word is used to through several days, is altogether proba- ble that they could disregard so plain a • the king was willing to give them ancommand, when disobedience was accom- other trial to see whether they were dispanied with such a threat. De Dieu ren- posed or not to worship the golden image, ders it, 'Is it a joke?' That is, can you To this he might have been led by the possibly be serious or in earnest that you j apprehension that they had not under stood the order, or that they had not duly considered the subject; and possibly by disobey so positive a command? Aben Ezra, Theodotion, and Saadias, render it it is in the margin, 'Have you done this of set purpose and design?' as if the king had regarded it as possible that there had been a misunderstanding, and as if he was not unwilling to find that respect for them as faithful officers, and for their countryman Daniel. There seems, moreover, to have been in the bosom of this monarch, with all his pride and passion, a readiness to do justice,

16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, 0 Nebuchadnezzar, we are not care ful ato answer thee in this matter.

and to furnish an opportunity of a fair trial before he proceeded to extremities. See ch. ii, 16, 26, 46, 47. f And who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands. That is, he either supposed that the God whom they adored would not be able to deliver them, or that he would not be disposed to do it. It was a boast of Sennacherib, when he warred against the Jews, that none of the gods of the nations which he had conquered had been able to rescue the lands over which they presided, and he argued from these premises that the God whom the Hebrews worshipped would not be able to defend their country: — "Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arphad? where are the gods of Sepharvaim? and have they delivered Samaria out of my hand? Who are they among all the gods of these lands that have delivered their land out of my hand, that JEHOVAH should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?" Isa. xxxvi. 19—21. Nebuchad nezzar seems to have reasoned in a simi lar manner, and with a degree of vain boasting that strongly resembled this, calling their attention to the certain de struction which awaited them if they did not comply with his demand.

16. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abedncgo, answered and said to the Icing. They appear to have answered promptly, and without hesitation, showing that they had carefully considered the subject, and \ that with them it was a matter of settled | and intelligent principle. But they did j it in a respectful manner, though they were firm. They neither reviled the mon arch nor his gods. They used no re proachful words respecting the image which he had set up, or any of the idols which ho worshipped. Nor did they com plain of his injustice or severity. They calmly looked at their own duty, and re solved to do it, leaving the consequences with the God whom they worshipped. ^ We are not careful to answer thee in this matter. The word rendered careful

17 If it be so, our God whom t>we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thy hand, 0 king.

— nc'n — means, according to Gesenius, to be needed or necessary; then, to have need. The Vulgate renders it, non oportet nos — it does not behoove us; it is not needful for us. So the Greek, oi> xptiw t\ontv — we have no need. So Luther, Es •1st Nicht noth — there is not necessity. The meaning, therefore, is, that it was not necessary that they should reply to the king on that point; they would not give themselves trouble or solicitude to do it. They had made up their minds, and what ever was the result, they could not wor ship the image which he had set up, or the gods whom he adored. They felt that there was no necessity for stating the rea sons why they could not do this. Per haps they thought that argument in their case was improper. It became them to do their duty, and to leave the event with God. They had no need to go into an extended vindication of their conduct, for it might be presumed that their princi ples of conduct were well known. The state of mind, therefore, which is indi cated by this passage, is that their minds were made up; that their principles were settled and well understood; that they had come to the deliberate determination, as a matter of conscience, not to yield obedience to the command; that the result could not be modified by any statement which they could make, or by any argument in the case; and that, therefore, they were not anxious about the result, but calmly com mitted the whole cause to God.

17. If it be so. Chald. >rnx ]H — so it is. That is, ' this is true, that the God whom we serve can save us.' The idea is not, as would seem in our translation, 'if we are to be cast into the furnace/ but the mind is turned on the fact that the God whom they served could save them. Coverdale renders this whole passage, " 0 Nebuchadnezzar, we ought not to consent unto thee in this matter, fo> why? our God whom we serve is able to keep us," &c. ^ Our God whom we serve. Gr. ' our God in the heavens, whom we serve.' This was a distinct avowal that they were

18 But if a not, be it kno\vn unto thee, 0 king, that we will not serve b thy gods, nor worship the golden

visage was changed against Shadrach, Meshach. and Abed-nego: therefore he spake, and commanded

19 fl Then was Nebuchadnezzar. one seven times more than it was r full of d fury, and the form of his wont to be heated.

the servants of the true God, and they were not ashamed to avow it, whatever might be the consequences, f Is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace. This was evidently said in reply to the question asked by the king (ver. 15), " Who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?" They were sure that the God whom they worshipped was able, if he should choose to do it, to save them from death. In what way they supposed he could save them, is not expressed. Probably it did not occur to them that he would save them in the manner in which he' actually did, but they felt that it was entirely within his power to keep them from so horrid a death if he pleased. The state of mind indicated in this verse, is that of entire confidence in God. Their an swer showed (a) that they had no doubt of his ability to save them if he pleased; (6) that they believed he would do what was best in the case; and (e) that they were entirely willing to commit the whole case into his hands, to dispose of it as he chose. Comp. Isa. xliii. 2.

]8. But if not. That is, 'if he should not deliver us; if it should not occur that he would protect us, and save us from that heated oven. Whatever may be the result in regard to us, our de termination is settled.' ^[ Be it knoion tmfo thee, 0 king, that we will not serve thy gods, &c. This answer is firm and noble. It showed that their minds were made up, and that it was with them a matter of principle not to worship false gods. T-be state of mind which is de noted by this verse, is that of a determi nation to do their duty, whatever might be j the consequences. The attention was fixed on what was right, not on what would be the result. The sole question which was asked was, what ought to be done in the case; and they had no concern about what would follow. True religion is a determined purpose to do right, and not to do wrong, whatever may be the consequences in either case. It matters not what follows — wealth or poverty; honour or dishonour; good report or evil report; life or death; the mind is firmly fixed on doing right, and not on doing wrong. This is the religion of principle; and when we consider the circumstances of those who made this reply; when we remember their comparative youth, and the few opportu nities which they had for instruction in the nature of religion, and that they were captives in a distant land, and that they stood before the most absolute monarch of the earth, with no powerful friends to sup. port them, and with the most horrid kind of death threatening them, we may well ad mire the grace of that God who could so amply furnish them for such a trial, and love that religion which enabled them to take a stand so noble and so bold.

19. Then was Nebuchadnezzar full of fury. "Marg.. filled. He was exceedingly enraged. He evidently was not prepared for a stand so firm and determined on their part, and he did not appreciate their motives, nor was he disposed to yield to them the privilege and right of follow ing their honest convictions. He was deeply excited with anger when the com plaint was made that they would not worship his gods (ver. 13), but he had hoped that possibly they had not un derstood his command, and that what they had done had not been by deliber ate purpose (Notes on ver. 14); and he had therefore given them an opportunity to reconsider the subject, and, by com plying with his will, to save themselves from the threatened punishment. Ho now saw, however, that what they had done was done deliberately. He saw that they firmly and intelligently refused to obey, and supposing now that they not only rebelled against his commands, but that they disregarded and despised even his forbearance (ver. 15), it is not won derful that he was filled with wrath. What was with them fixed principle, he

20 And he commanded the » most I 21 Then these men were bound mighty men that were in his army in their b coats, their hosen, and to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and their chats, and their other gar- Abed-nego, and to cast them into; ments, and were cast into the midst the burning fiery furnace.

probably regarded as mere obstinacy, and j were. No time was given them for prehe determined to punish them accord- paration; no change was made in their ingly. IT And the form of his visage was I dress. In auto.de-fes of later times, it cltanyed. As the face usually is when ings. IT He spake and commanded that j they should heat the furnace one seven I times more than it was wont to be heated. Chald., ' Than it was seen to be heated;' that is, than it was ever seen. The word seven here is a perfect number, and the meaning is, that they should make it as hot as possible. He did not reflect pro bably that by this command he was con tributing to shorten and abridge their! sufferings. Wicked men, who are vio-! lently opposed to religion, often overdo I the matter, and by their haste and iiu- 1 petuosity defeat the very end which they; have in view, and even promote the very cause which they wish to destroy.

20. And he commanded the most mighty, men that were in his army. Marg., mighty j of strength. Chald. ' And to mighty men, mighty men of strength who were in his army, he said/ He employed the strongest men that could be found for this purpose. ^[ To bind Shadrach, &c. Gill supposes that they were probably bound together, as the king afterwards was astonished to see them walking separately in the furnace. But there is no certain evidence of this, and in itself it is not very probable. It is well re marked by Gill, however, that there was no need of binding them at all. They would have made no resistance, and there was no danger that they would make any effort to escape.

the furnace, however, only made the miracle the more conspicuous, since not even their garments were affected by the fire. The word rendered coats, is in the margin rendered mantles. The Chaldee word — t^yW — means, according to Gesenius, the long and wide pantaloons which are worn by the Orientals, from Sa-p — sarbel, to cover. The Greek word used in the translation is derived from this — aapdfiapa^ and the word oapffapidts is still used in modern Greek. The Chaldee word is used only in this chapter. Tho Vulgate renders this cum braccis suit— hence the word breeches, and brogues. The garment referred to, therefore, seems rather to be that which covered the lower part of their person than either ft coat or mantle, ^f Their hosen. This word was evidently designed by our translators to de note drawers, or trowsers — not stockings, for that was the common meaning of the word when the translation was made. It is not probable that the word is designed to denote stockings, as they are not commonly worn in the East. Harmer supposes that the word here used means properly a hammer, and that the refer ence is to a hammer that was carried as a symbol of office, and he refers in illus tration of this to the plates of Sir John Chardin of carvings found in the ruins of Persepolis, among which a man is re presented with a hammer or mallet in each hand. He supposes that this waa some symbol of office. The more com mon and just representation, however, is

22 Therefore because the king's a commandment was urgent, and the furnace exceeding hot, the b flame of the fire slew those c men that

to regard this as referring to an article of dress. The Chaldee word — B^BS — pattish, is from £:E9 — patash, to break, to hammer (n-artiffCTco); to spread out, to expand; and the noun means (1) a ham mer, Isa. xli. 7; Jer. xxiii. 29, 1. 53, and (2) a garment, probably with the idea of its being spread out, and perhaps re ferring to a tunic or under-garment. Comp. Gesenius on the word. The Greek is, nopals, and so the Latin Vulgate, tiaris: the tiara, or covering for the head, turban. The probable reference, however, is to the under garment worn by the Orientals; the tunic, not a little resembling a shirt with us. ^ And their hats. Marg., or turbans. The Chaldee word — N^^HD — is rendered by Gesenius mantle, pallium. So the version called the ' breeches' Bible, renders it clokes. Coverdale renders it shoes, and so the Vulgate calceainentis, sandals; and the Greek KtpiKyrimaiv — greaves, or a garment en closing the lower limbs; pantaloons. There is certainly no reason for render ing the word hats — as hats were then un known; nor is there any evidence that it refers to a turban. Buxtorf, (Chald. Lex.) regards it as meaning a garment, particularly an outer garment, a cloak,

23 And these three men, Sha drach, Meshach, and Abed-nego,

the principal articles of dress in which the Orientals appear, as is shown by the cut, from the ruins of Persepolis — the large and loose trowsers; the tunic, or inner garment; and the outer garment, or cloak, that was commonly thrown over all. IT And their other garments. What ever they had on, whether turban, belt, sandals, &c.

22. Therefore because the Icing's com mandment was urgent. Marg., as in Chald., word. The meaning is, that the king would admit of no delay; he urged on the execution of his will, even at the imminent peril of those who were en trusted with the execution of his com mand. TT And the furnace exceeding hot. Probably so as to send out the flame so far as to render the approach to it dan gerous. The urgency of the king would not admit of any arrangements, even if there could have been any, by which the approach to it would be safe. It The flame of the Jlre slew those men. Marg., as in Chaldee, spark. The meaning is, what the fire threw out — the blaze, the heat Nothing can be more probable than this. It was necessary to approach to the very mouth of the furnace in order to cast them in, and it is very conceivable that a heated furnace would belch forth such flames, or throw out such an amount of heat, that this could not be done but at the peril of life. The Chaldee word ren dered slew here, means killed. It does not mean merely that they were over come with the heat, but that they actually died. To expose these men thus to death was an act of great cruelty, but we are to remember how absolute is the charac ter of an Oriental despot, and how much enraged this king was, and how regard less §uch a man would be of any effects on others in the execution of his own will.

23. And these three men — -fell down bound, &c. That is, the flame did not loosen the cords by which they had been fastened. The fact that they were seen to fall into the furnace bound, made the miracle the more remarkable that they fell down bound into the midst of j a counsellors, Did not we cast three the burning fiery furnace. men bound into the midst of the

24 If Then Nebuchadnezzar the; fire? They answered and said unto

king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his

should be seen walking loose in the midst of the fire.

In the Septuagint, Syriac, Arabic, and Latin Vulgate, there follow in this place sixty-eight verses, containing " The Song of the Tbree Holy Children." This is not in the Chaldee, and its origin is unknown. It is with entire propriety placed in the Apocrypha, as being no part of the in spired canon. With some things that are improbable and absurd, the 'song' contains many things that are beautiful, and that would be highly appropriate if a song nad been uttered at all in the fur nace.

24. Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied. The word astonied, which occurs several times in our translation, (Ezra ix. 3; Job xvii. 8, xviii. 20; Ezek. iv. 17; Dan. iii. 24, iv. 19, v. 9,) is but another form for astonished, and ex presses wonder or amazement. The rea sons of the wonder here were. that the men who were bound when cast into the furnace were seen alive, and walking un bound; that to them a fourth person was added, walking with them; and that the fourth had the appearance of a divine personage. It would seem from this, that the furnace was so made that one could conveniently see into it, and also that the king remained near to it to witness the result of the execution of his own order. ^l And rose up in haste. He would na turally express his surprise to his coun sellors, and ask an explanation of the remarkable occurrence which he wit nessed. *[ And spake, and said unto his counsellors. Marg., governors. The word used — r"1?"^ — occurs only here and in ver. 27, ch. iv. 36, vi. 7. It is rendered counsellors in each case. The Vulgate renders it optimatibus; the Ixx. nsyiardaiv — his nobles, or distinguished men. The word would seem to mean those who were authorized to speak (from 131) j that is, those authorized to give counsel j ministers of state, viziers, cabi net-counsellors. ^[ Did not ice cast three men bound, &c. The emphasis here is on the words three, and bound. It was now a matter of astonishment that there were four, and that they were all loose. It is not to be supposed that Nebuchad nezzar had any doubt on this subject, or that his recollection had so soon failed him, but this manner of introducing the subject is adopted in order to fix the attention strongly on the fact to which he was about to call their attention, and which was to him so much a matter of surprise.

25. He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose. From the fact that he saw these men now loose, and that this filled him with so much surprise, it may be presumed that they had been bound with something that was not combustible — with some sort of fetters or chains. In that case, it would be a matter of surprise that they should be loose, even though they could survive the action of the fire. The fourth personage now so mysteri ously added to their number, it is evident assumed the appearance of a man, and not the appearance of a celestial being, though it Avas the aspect of a man so no ble and majestic that he deserved to be called a son of God. IT Walking in the midst of the fire. The furnace, therefore, was large, so that those who were in it could walk about. The vision must have been sublime; and it is a beautiful image of the children of God often walking uuhurt amidst dangers, safe beneath the divine protection. ^[ And they have no hurt. Marg., There is no hurt in them. They walk unharmed amidst the flames. Of course the king judged in this only from appearances, but the result (ver. 27) showed that it was really so. ^[ And the form of the fourth. Chaldee, nn — his appearance (from Hfrn, to see); that is, he seemed to be a son of God; he looked like a son of God. The word does not refer to anything special or peculiar in his/or?tt or figure, but it may be supposed to denote something that was noble or majestic in his mien; something in his countenance and demeanour that declared see four men loose, vralking * in the midst of the fire, band they have him to be of heavenly origin. ^ Like the Son of God. There are two inquiries which arise" in regard to this expression: one is, what was the idea denoted by the phrase as used by the king, or who did he take this personage to be? the other, who he actually was? In regard to the former inquiry, it may be observed, that there is no evidence that the king referred to him to whom this title is so frequently applied in the New Testament, the Lord Jesus Christ. This is clear (1) because there is no reason to believe that the king had any knowledge whatever that there would be on earth one to whom this title might be appropriately given; (2) there is no evidence that the title was then commonly given to the Messiah by the Jews, or, if it was, that the king of Babylon was so versed in Jewish theology as to be acquainted with it; and (3) the language which he uses does not necessarily imply that, even if he were acquainted with the fact that there was a prevailing expectation that fuch a being would appear on the earth he designed so to use it. The insertion of the article ' the,' which is not in the Cbaldee, gives a differ ent impression from what the original would if literally interpreted. There is nothing in the Chaldce to limit it to any 1 son of God,' or to designate any one to whom that term could be applied as pe culiarly intended. It would seem pro bable that our translators meant to convey the idea that 'the Son of God' peculiarly was intended, and doubtless they regarded this as one of his appearances to men before his incarnation; but it is clear that no such conception entered into the mind of the king of Babylon. The Chaldee is simply, prt'ltf-nj'? nip"], 'like to a son of God,' or to a son of the gode — as the word fT^iS — Elohin (Chald.), or Elohim (Heb.), though often, and indeed usually applied to the true God, is in the plural number, and in the mouth of a heathen would properly be used to denote the gods that he worshipped. The article is not prefixed to the word ' son,' and the language would apply to any one who might properly bo called a ton of God.

no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

The Vulgate has literally rendered it ' liko to a son of God ' — senrilis filio Dei; the Greek in the same way — bfioia vlfp Scou; the Syrjac is like the Chal dee; Castellio renders it, quartus formam habet Deo nati similem — 'the fourth has a form resembling one born of God,-' Coverdale, ' the fourth is like an angel to look upon;' Luther, more definitely, und der vierte ist gleich, als ware er ein Sohn der Gotter — 'and the fourth as if he might be a son of the gods.' It is clear that the authors of none of the other ver sions bad the idea which our translators supposed to be conveyed by the text, and which implies that the Babylonian mon arch supposed that the person whom he saw was the one who afterwards became incarnate for our redemption. In accord ance with the common well known usage of the word non in the Hebrew and Chal dee languages, it would denote any one who had a resemblance to another, and would be applied to any being who was of a majestic or dignified appearance, and who seemed worthy to be ranked among the gods. It was usual among the hea then to suppose that the gods often ap peared in a human form, and probably Nebuchadnezzar regarded this as some such celestial appearance. If it be sup posed that he regarded it as some mani festation connected with the Hebrew form of religion, the most that would probably occur to him would be, that it was some angelic being appearing now for the pro tection of these worshippers of Jehovah. But a, second inquiry, and one that is not so easily answered, in regard to this mys terious personage, arises. Who in fact ico* this being that appeared in the fur nace for the protection of these three persecuted men? Was it an angel, or was it the second person of the Trinity, tlie Son of God? That this was the Son of God — the second person of the Trinity, who afterwards became incarnate, Las been quito a common opinion of exposi tors. So it was held by Tertullian, by Augustine, and by Hilary, among the Fathers; and so it has been held by Gill, Clarius, and others among the mod ern*. Of those who have maintained that it was Christ, some have supposed that Nebuchadnezzar had been made ac quainted with the belief of the Hebrews in regard to the Messiah; others, that he spoke under the influence of the Holy Spirit, without being fully aware of what his words imported, as Caiaphas, Saul, Pilate, and others have done. Poole, Syn. The Jewish writers, Jarchi, Saadiah, and Jacchides, suppose that it was an angel, called a son of God in accord ance with the usual custom in the Scrip tures. That this latter is the correct opinion, will appear evident, though there cannot be exact certainty, from the fol lowing considerations: (1) The language used implies necessarily nothing more. Though it might indeed be applicable to the Messiah — the second person of the Trinity, if it could be determined from other sources that it was he, yet there is nothing in the language which necessa rily suggests this. (2) In the explanation of the matter by Nebuchadnezzar him self (ver. 28), he understood it to be an angel — "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, <fcc., ivho hath sent his angel," &o. This shows that he had had no other view of the subject, and that he had no higher knowledge in the case than to suppose that he was an angel of God. The know ledge of the existence of angels was so common among the ancients, that there is no improbability in supposing that Ne buchadnezzar was sufficiently instructed on this point to know that they were sent for the protection of the good. (3) The belief that it was an angel accords with what we find elsewhere in this book (comp. ch. vi. 22, vii. 10, ix. 21), and in other places in the sacred scriptures, re specting their being employed to protect and defend the children of God. Comp. Ps. xxxiv. 7, xci. 11, 12; Matt, xviii. 10; Luke xvi. 22; Heb. i. 14. (4) It may be added, that it should not be supposed that it was the Son of God in the peculiar sense of that term without positive evi dence, and such evidence does not exist. Indeed, there is scarcely a probability that it was so. If the Redeemer ap peared on this occasion, it cannot be ex plained why, in a case equally important and perilous, he did not appear to Daniel when cast into the lions'den (ch. vi. 22); and as Daniel then attributed his deliv erance to the intervention of an angel, there is every reason why the same explanation should be given of this passage. As to the probability that an angel would be employed on an occasion like this, it may be observed, that it is in accordance with the uniform representation of the scriptures, and with what we know to be a great law of the universe. The weak, the feeble, and those who are in danger, are protected by those who are strong; and there is, in itself, no more improba bility in the supposition that an angel would be employed to work a miraclo than there is that a man would be. Wo are not to suppose that the angel was able to prevent the usual effect of fire by any natural strength of his own. The miracle in the case, like all other miracles, was wrought by the power of God. At the same time, the presence of the angel would be a pledge of the divine protec tion; would be an assurance that the effect produced was not from any natural cause; would furnish an easy explanation of so remarkable an occurrence; and, perhaps more than all, would impress the Babylonian monarch and his court with some just views of the divine nature, and with the truth of the religion which was professed by those whom he had cast into the flames. As to the probability that a miracle would be wrought on an occasion like this, it may be remarked that a more appropriate occasion for working a miracle could scarcely be conceived. At a time when the true religion was perse cuted; at the court of the most powerful heathen monarch in the world; when the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed, and the fires on the altars had been put out, and the people of God were exiles in a distant land, nothing was more probable than that God would give to his people some manifest tokens of his presence, and some striking confirmation of the truth of his religion. There has perhaps never been an occasion when we should more cer tainly expect the evidences of the divine interposition than during the exile of his people in Babylon; and during their long captivity there it is not easy to conceive of an occasion on which such an interpo sition would be more likely to occur than when, in the very presence of the mon arch and his court, three youths of emi nent devotedness to the cause of God were cast into a burning furnace, be cause they steadfastly refused to dishonour

26 Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the a mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, ye b servants of the most high c God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, came forth of the midst of the fire.

27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's coun sellors, being gathered together, saw

26. Then Nebuchadnezzar came near the mouth, &c. Marg., door. The Chaldee word means door, gate, entrance. The form of the furnace is unknown. There was a place, however, through which the fuel was cast into it, and this is doubtless intended by the word door or mouth here used. ^[ Ye servants of the most high God. They had professed to be his servants; he now saw that they were acknowledged as such. The phrase ' most high God' implies that he regarded him as supreme over all other gods, though it is probable that he still retained his belief in the existence of inferior divinities. It was much, however, to secure the acknowledgment of the mon arch of the capital of the heathen world, that the God whom they adored was su preme. The phrase ' most high God' is not often employed in the Scriptures, but in every instance it is used as an appel lation of the true God. ^[ Come forth and come hither. The reasons which seem to have influenced this singular monarch to recall the sentence passed on them, and to attempt to punish them no further, seem to have been, that he had some remains of conscience; that he was ac customed to pay respect to what he regarded as God; and that he now saw evidence that a true God was there.

27. And the princes, governors, and captains. Notes, ver. 3. *| And the king's counsellors. Notes, ver. 24. ^ Being gathered together, saw these men. There could be no mistake about the reality of the miracle. They came out as they were cast in. There could have been no trick, no art, no legerdemain, by which they could have been preserved and re stored. If the facts occurred as they are ttated here, then there can be no doubt

'these men, upon whose bodies the fire had d no power, nor was a hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.

28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Sha drach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who hath sent his e angel, and de livered his servants that trusted f in him, and have changed the king's

that this was a real miracle. f Upon whose bodies the fire had no power. That is, the usual power of fire on the human body was prevented, f Nor was a hair of their head singed. That which would be most likely to have burned. The de sign is to show that the fire had produced absolutely no effect on them, ^f Neither were their coats changed. On the word coats, see Notes on ver. 21. The word changed, means that there was no change caused by the fire either in their colour or their texture. ^[ Nor had the smell of fire passed on them. Not the slightest effect had been produced by the fire, not even so much as to occasion the smell caused by fire when cloth is singed or burned. Perhaps, however, sulphur or pitch had been used in heating the fur nace, and the idea may be, that their preservation had been so entire that not even the smell of the smoke caused by those combustibles could be perceived.

28. Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, &c. On the characteristic of mind thus evinced by this monarch, see the Notes and Prac tical Ptemarks on ch. ii. 46, 47. f Which hath sent his angel. This proves that tho king regarded this mysterious fourth per sonage as an angel, and that he used the phrase (ver. 25,) 'is like the son of God,' only in that sense. That an angel should be employed on an embassage of this kind, we have seen is in accordance with the current statements of the Scriptures. Comp. Excursas I. to Prof. Stuart on the Apocalypse. See also Luke i. 11 — 20, 26 — 38; Matt. i. 20, 21, ii. 13, 19, 20, iv. 11, xviii. 10: Acts xii. 7—15; Gen. xxxii. 1,2', 2 Kings vi. 17; Ex. xiv. 19, xxiii. 20, xxxiii. 2; Num. xx. 16; Josh. v. 13; Isa. Ixiii. 9; Dan. x. 5—13, 20,21, xii. 1.

word, and yielded their a bodies, that they might not serve nor wor ship any God, except their own God. 29 Therefore b I make a e decree, That every people, nation, and lan-

^ And have changed the king's icord. That is, his purpose or command. Their conduct, and the divine protection in consequence of their conduct, had had the efl'ect wholly to change his purpose to wards them. He had resolved to destroy them; he now resolved to honour them. This is referred to by the monarch him self as a remarkable result, as indeed it was — that an eastern despot who had re solved on the signal punishment of any of his subjects should be so entirely changed in his purposes towards them. ^[ And yielded their bodies. The Greek adds here as K»p — 'to the "fire/ So the Arabic. This is doubtless the sense of the passage. The meaning is, that rather than bow down to worship gods which they regarded as no gods; rather than violate their consciences and do wrong, they had preferred to be cast into the flames, committing themselves to the protection of God. It is implied here that they had done this voluntarily, and that they might easily have avoided it if they had chosen to obey the king. He had given them time to deliberate on the subject (vs. 14, 15,) and he knew that they had resolved to pursue the course which they did from principle, no matter what might be the results, vs. 16 — 18. This strength of principle; this obedience to the dictates of conscience; this de termination not to do wrong at any hazard, he could not but respect; and this is a remarkable instance to show that a firm and steady course in doing what is right, will command the respect of even wicked men. This monarch, with all his pride, and haughtiness, and tyranny, had not a few generous quali ties, and some of the finest illustrations of human nature were furnished by him. ^[ That they might not serve nor worship any God, except their own God. They gave up their bodies to the flame rather than do this.

guage, which speak a any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, shall be e cut in f pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because

acted. This Chaldee word cyt? — means properly taste, flavour; then judgment, the power of discerning — apparently as of one who can judge of wine, &c., by the taste; then the sentence, the decree which is consequent on an act of judging — always retaining the idea that the de termination or decree is based on a con ception of the true merits of the case. The decree in this case was not designed to be regarded as arbitrary, but as being founded on what was right and proper. He had seen evidence that the God whom these three youths worshipped was a true God, and was able to protect those who trusted in him, and regarding him as a real God, he made this proclamation that respect should be shown to him through out his extended realm. ^ That every people, nation, and language. This de cree is in accordance with the usual style of an Oriental monarch. It was, however, a fact that the empire of Nebuchad nezzar extended over nearly all of the then known world. ^[ Which speak any thing amiss. Marg., error. The Chaldee word — n^K* — means error, wrong, and it refers here to any thing that would bo fitted to lead the minds of men astray in regard to the true character of the God whom these persons worshipped. The Vulgate renders it blasphemy. So also it is rendered in the Greek —,/?Aaa$/j/Lu'ai'. The intention was, that their God was to be acknowledged as a God of eminent power and rank. It does not appear that Nebuchadnezzar meant that he should be regarded as the only true God, but he was willing, in accordance with the pre vailing notions of idolatry, that he should take his place among the gods, and a most honoured place. ^ Shall be cut in pieces. Marg., made. This was a spe cies of punishment that was common in many ancient nations. Gesenius. IF And their houses shall be made a dunghill. Comp. 2 Kings x. 27. The idea is, that the utmost possible dishonour and con tempt should be placed on their houses there is no other God that can de liver after this sort.

30 f Then the king a promoted

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, in the province of Babylon.

oy devoting ihem to the most vile and offensive uses. IF Because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort. He does not say that there was no other god at all, for his mind had not yet reached this conclusion, but there was no other one who had equal power with the God of the Hebrews. He had seen a manifes tation of his power in the preservation of the three Hebrews, such as no other god had ever exhibited, and he was willing to admit that in this respect he surpassed all other divinities.

30. Then the king promoted Shadrach, &c. Marg., made to prosper. The Chaklee means no more than made to prosper. Whether he restored them to their former places, or to higher honours, does not appear. There would be, how ever, nothing inconsistent with his usual course in supposing that he raised them to more exalted stations. IT In the pro vince of Babylon. See Notes on ch. ii.

49. The Greek and the Arabic add here, "And he counted them worthy to preside over all the Jews that were in his king dom." But nothing of this is found in the Chaldee, and it is not known by whom this addition was made.

In the Vulgate and the Greek versions, and in some of the critical editions of the Hebrew Scriptures (Walton, Hahn, <fcc.), the three first verses of the following chapter are subjoined to this. It is well known that the divisions of the chapters are of no authority, but it is clear that these verses belong more appropriately to the following chapter than to this, as the reason there assigned by the mon arch for the proclamation is what occurred to himself, (ver. 2,) rather than what he had witnessed in others. The division, therefore, which is made in our com mon version of the Bible, and in the Syriac and the Arabic, is the correct one.

I. The instance recorded in this chapter (vs. 1 — 7.) is not improbably the first case Avhich ever occurred in the world, of an attempt to produce conformity in idolatrous worship by penal statute. It has, however, been.abundantly imitated since, alike in the heathen and in the nominally Christian world. There are no portions of history more interesting than those which describe the progress of religious liberty; the various steps which have been taken to reach the result which has now been arrived at, and to settle the principles which are now regarded as the true ones. Between the views which were formerly entertained, and which are still enter tained in many countries, and those which constitute the Protestant notions on the subject, there is a greater difference than there is in regard to civil rights between the views which pre vail under an Oriental despotism, and the most enlarged and enlightened notions of civil free dom. The views which have prevailed on the subject are the following: — 1. The general doc trine among the heathen has been, that there were many gods in heaven and earth, and that all were entitled to reverence. One nation was supposed to have as good a right to worship its own gods as another, and it was regarded as at least an act of courtesy to show respect to the gods that any nation adored, in the same way as respect would be shown to the sovereigns who presided over them. Hence the gods of all nations could be consistently introduced into the Pantheon at Koine; hence there were few attempts to proselyte among the heathen; and hence it was not common to persecute those who worshipped other gods. Persecution of idolaters by those who were idolaters, was, therefore, rarely known among the heathen, and toleration was not contrary to the views which prevailed, provided the gods of the country were recognized. In ancient Chaldee, Assyria, Greece, and Home in the earliest ages, persecution was rare, and the toleration of other forms of religion was usual. 2. The views which have prevailed lead ing to persecution, and which are a violation, as we suppose, of all just notions of liberty on the subject of religion, are the following: (a) Those among the heathen which, as in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, require all to worship a particular god that should be set up. In such a case, it is clear that while all who were idolaters^ and who supposed that all the gods worshipped by others should be respected, could render homage; it is also clear that those who regarded all idols as false gods, and believed that none of them ought to be wor shipped, could not comply with the command. Such was the case with the Jews who were in Babylon (vs. 8 — 18,) for supposing that there was but one God, it was plain that they could not render homage to any other. While, therefore, every idolater could render homage to any Viol, the Hebrew could render homage to none, (b) The views among the heathen prohibiting the exercise of a certain kind of religion. According to the prevailing views, no mode of reli gion could be tolerated which would maintain that all the gods that were worshipped were false. B01igk>B was supposed to be identified with the best interests of the state, and was recognized by the laws, and protected by the laws. To deny the claim, therefore, of any and of all the gods that were worshipped; to maintain that all were false alike; to call on men to forsake their idols, and to embrace a new religion — all this was regarded as an attack on the state. This was the attitude which Christianity assumed towards the religions of the Roman empire, and it was this which led to the fiery persecutions which prevailed there. While Rome could consistently tolerate any form of idolatry that would recognize the religion established by the state, it could not tolerate a system which maintained that all idolatry was wrong. It would allow another god to be placed in the Pantheon, but it could not recognize a system which would remove every god from that temple. Christianity, then, made war on the system of idolatry that prevailed in the Roman empire in two respects: in proclaiming a purer religion, denouncing all the corruptions which idolatry had engendered, and which it countenanced; and in denying altogether that the gods which were worshipped were true gods — thus arraying itself against the laws, the priesthood, the venerable institutions, and all the passions and pre judices of the people. Those views may be thus summed up: (a) all the gods worshipped by others were to be recognized; (b) new ones might be introduced by authority of the state; (c) the gods which the state approved and acknowledged were to be honoured by all; (d) if any persons denied their existence, and their claims to homage, they were to be treated as enemies of the state. It was on this last principle that persecutions ever arose under the heathen forms of religion. Infidels, indeed, have been accustomed to charge Christianity with all the persecutions on account of religion, and to speak in high terms of "the mild tolerance of the ancient heathens;" of " the universal toleration of polytheism;" of " the Ro man princes beholding without concern a thousand forms of religion subsisting in peace un der their gentle sway." Gibbon. But it should be remembered that pagan nations required of every citizen conformity to their national idolatries. When this was refused, persecution arose as a matter of course. Stilpo was banished from Athens for affirming that the statue of Minerva in the citadel was no divinity, but only the work of the chisel of Phidias. Protagoras received a similar punishment for this sentence: "Whether there be gods or not, I have nothing to offer." Prodicus, and his pupil Socrates, suffered death for opinions at variance with the estab lished idolatry of Athens. Alcibiades and ^Eschylus narrowly escaped a like end for a similar cause. Cicero lays it down as a principle of legislation entirely conformable to the laws of the Roman state, that " no man shall have separate gods for himself; and no man shall worship by himself new or foreign gods, unless they have been publicly acknowledged by the laws of the state." De Legibus, 1L 8. Julius Paulus, the Roman civilian, gives the following as a leading feature of the Roman law: '" Those who introduced new religions, or such as were unknown in their tendency and nature, by which the minds of men might be agitated, were degraded, if they belonged to the higher ranks, and if they were in a lower state, were punished with death." See Mcllvaiue's Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity, pp. 427 — 129. (p) The attempts made to produce conformity in countries where the Christian system has prevailed. In such countries, as among the heathen, it has been supposed that religion is an important auxiliary to the purposes of the state, and that it is proper that the state should not only prefect it, but regulate it. It has claimed the right, therefore, to prescribe the form of religion which shall prevail; to require conformity to that, and to punish all who did not conform to the established mode of worship. This attempt to produce conformity has led to most of the persecutions of modern times. 3. The principles which have been settled by the discussions and agitations of past times, and which are recognized in ail countries where there are any just views of religious liberty, and which are destined yet to be universally recognized, are the following: (a) There is to be, on the subject of religion, perfect liberty to worship God in the manner that shall be most in accordance with the views of the individual himself, provided in doing it he does not interfere with the rights, or disturb the worship of others. It is not merely that men are to be tolerated in the exercise of their religion — for the word tolerate would seem to imply that the state had some right of control in the matter — but the true word to express the idea is liberty, (b) The state is to protect all in the enjoyment of these equal rights. Its authority does not go beyond this; its duty demands this. These two principles compose all that are required on the subject of religious liberty. They have been in our world, however, principles of slow growth. They were unknown in Greece — for Socrates died because they were cot unck'rstccd; they were unknown in Rome — f6r the state claimed the power to determine what gods should be admitted into the Pantheon; they were unknown even in Judea — for a national or state reli gion was established there; they were unknown in Babylon — for the monarch there claimed the right of enforcing conformity to the national religion; they were jinknown in Europe in the middle ages — for all the horrors of the inquisition grew out of the fact that they were not understood; they are unknown in Turkey, and China, and Persia — for the state regards reli gion as under its control. The doctrine of entire freedom in religion; of perfect liberty to worship Uod according to our own views of right, is the last point which society is to reach in this direction. It is impossible to conceive that there is to be anything beyond this which mankind are to desire in the progress towards the perfection of the social organization; and when this shall be everywhere reached, the affairs of the world will be placed on a permanent footing.

II. In the spirit evinced by the three young men, and the answer which they gave, when accused of not worshipping the- image, and when threatened with a horrid death, we have a ocautif ul illustration of the nature and value of the religion of principle, vs. 12—18. To enable ua 17* jo see the force of this example, and to appreciate its value, we are to remember that these were yet comparatively young men; that they were captives in a distant land; that they had no powerful friends at court; that they had had, compared with what we now have, few advan tages of instruction; that they were threatened with a most horrid death; and that they had nothing of a worldly nature to hope for by refusing compliance with the king's commands. This instance is of value to us, because it is not only important to have religion, but to have the best Jdnd of religion; and it is doubtless in order that we may have this, that such examples are set before us in the scriptures. In regard to this kind of religion, there are three inqxiiries which would present themselves: on what is it founded? what will it lead us to do? and what is its value? (1) It is founded mainly on two things: an intelligent view of duty, and fixed principle, (a) An intelligent view of duty; an acquaintance with what is right, and what is wrong. These young men had made up their ininds intelligently, that it was right to worship God, and that it was wrong to render homage to an idol. This was not obstinacy. Obstinacy exists where a man has made up his mind, and resolves to act, without any good reason, or without an intelligent view of what is right or wrong, and where he adheres to his purpose not because it is right, but from the influence of mere will. The religion of principle is always found where there is an intelligent view of what is right, and a man can give a reason for what he does, (ft) This religion is founded on a determination to do what is right, and not to do what is wrong. The question is not what is expedient, or popular, or honourable, or lucrative, or pleasant, but what is right. (2) What will such a religion lead us to do? This question may be answered by a reference to the case before us, and it will be found that it will lead us to do these things: (a) To do our duty without being solicitous or anxious about the results, ver.16.

(b) To put confidence in God, feeling that if he pleases, he can protect us from danger, ver. 17.

(c) To do our duty, whatever may be the consequences — whether he protects us or not. ver. 18. (3) What is the value of this kind of religion? (a) It is the only kind in which there is any fixed and certain standard. If a man regulates his opinions and conduct from expediency, or from respect to the opinions of others, or from feeling, or from popular impulses, there is no standard; there is nothing settled or definite. Now one thing is popular, now another; to-day the feelings may prompt to one thing, to-morrow to another; at one time expediency will suggest one course, at another a different course, (b) It is the only kind of religion on which reliance can be placed. In endeavouring to spread the gospel; to meet the evils which are in the world: to promote the cause of temperance, chastity, liberty, truth, and peace, the only thing on which permanent reliance can be placed is the religion of principle. And (c) it is the only religion which is certainly genuine. A man may see much poetic beauty in religion; he may have much of the religion of sentiment; he may admire God in the grandeur of his works; he may have warm feelings easily enkindled on the subject of religion, and may even weep at the foot of the cross in view of the wrongs and woes that the Saviour endured; he may be impressed with the forms, and pomp, and splendour of gorgeous worship, and still have no genuine repentance for his sins, no saving faith in the Redeemer, no real love to God.

III. We have in this chapter (vs. 19 — 23,) an affecting case of an attempt to punish men for holding certain opinions, and for acting in conformity with them. When we read of an instance of persecution like this, it occurs to us to ask the following questions: — What is persecution? why has it been permitted by God? and what effects have followed from it? (1) What is persecu tion? It is pain inflicted, or some loss, or disadvantage in person, family, or office, on account of holding certain opinions. It has had two objects; one to punish men for holding certain opi nions, as if the persecutor had a right to regard this as an offence against the state; and the other a professed view to reclaim those who are made to suffer, and to save their souls. In regard to the pain or suffering involved in persecution, it is not material what kind of pain is inflicted in order to constitute persecution. Any bodily suffering; any deprivation of comfort; any exclusion from office; any holding up of one to public reproach; or any form of ridicule, constitutes the essence of persecution. It may be added, that not a few of the inventions most distinguished for inflicting pain, and known as refinements of cruelly, have been originated in times of persecution, and would propably have been unknown if it had not been for the pur pose of restraining men from the free exercise of religious opinions. The Inquisition has been most eminent in this; and within the walls of that dreaded institution, it is probable that human ingenuity has been exhausted in devising the most refined modes of inflicting torture on the human frame. (2) Why has this been permitted? Among the reasons why it has been permitted, may be the following: (a) To show the power and reality of religion. It seemed desirable to subject it to all kinds of trial, in order to show that its existence could not be ac counted for except on the supposition that it is from God. If men had never been called on to suffer on account of religion, it would have been ea^y for the enemy of religion to allege that there was little evidence that it was genuine, or was of value, for it had never been tried. Comp. Job i. 9 — 11. As it is, it has been subjected to every form of trial which wicked men could devise, and has shown itself to be adapted to meet them all. The work of the martyrs has been well done; and religion in the times of martyrdom lias shown itself to be all that it is desirable it should be. (ft) In order to promote its spread in the world. 'The blood of the martyrs has been the seed of Ihe church,' and it is probable that religion in past times has owed much uf its purity, and of its diffusion, to the fact that it has been persecuted, (c) To fit the sufferers for an exalted place in heaven. They who have suffered persecution needed trials as well as others, for all Christians need them — and theirs came in this form. Some of the most lovely traits of Christian character have been brought out in connection with persecution, and some 01 the most triumphant exhibitions of preparation for heaven have been made at the stake.

^3) What have been the effects of persecution? (a) It has been the settled point that the Chris tian religion cannot be destroyed by persecution. There is no power to be brought against it more mighty than, for example, was that of the Roman empire; and it is impossible to conceive that there should be grefiter refinements of cruelty than have been employed, (b) The effect has been to diffuse the religion which has been persecuted. The manner in which the sufferings inflicted have been endured, has shown that there is reality and power in it. It is also a law of human nature to sympathize with the wronged and the oppressed, and we insensibly learn to transfer the sympathy which we have for these persons to their opinions. When we see one vrho is wronged, we soon find our hearts beating in unison with his, and soon find ourselves taking sides with him in everything.

IV. We have in this chapter (vs. 24 — 27,) an instructive illustration of the protection which God affords his people in times of trial. These men were thrown into the furnace on account of their obedience to God, and their refusal to do that which they knew he would not approve. The result showed, by a most manifest miracle, that they were right in the course which they took, and their conduct was the occasion of furnishing a most striking proof of the wisdom of trusting in God in the faithful performance of duty, irrespective of consequences. Similar illustrations were furnished in the case of Daniel in the lion's den, (ch. vi. 16 — 22,) and of Peter, (Acts xii. 1 — 10.) But a question of much interest arises here, which is, What kind of protection may we look for now? (1) There are numerous promises made to the righteous of every age and countiy. They are not promises indeed of miraculous interference, but they are promises of an, interposition of some kind in their behalf, which will show that " it is not a vain thing to serve God." Among them, are those recorded in the following places: — 2 Chron. xvi. 9; Ps. iv. 3, v. 12, xv. 1—5, xxxvii.3— 10, IT— 26, 34 — 40, Iviii. 11, Ixxxiv. 11, xcii. 12—15, xcvii. 11, cxii. 1—5; Prov. iii. 3, 4, 31—35, x. 2, 3, 6—9, 25—30, xiii. 6—21, 22, xiv. 30—34, xvi. 8, xx. 7, xxi. 21; Isa. xxxii. 17, xxxiii. 15, 16; Matt, vi.33; 1 Tim. iv. 8, 9, vi. 6; 1 Pet. iii. 10—13; John xii. 26; Ex. xx. 5, 6; Ps. ix. 9, 10, xxiii. 4, xlvi. 1, Iv. 22; Isa. liv. 7, 8; Matt. v. 4; Job v. 19. (2) In regard to the kind of interposition that we may look for now, or the nature of the favours

Implied in these promises, it may be observed: (a) That we are not to look for any miraculous interpositions in our favour. (6) We arc not to expect that there will be on earth an exact adjustment of the divine dealings according to the deserts of all persons, or according to the prin ciples of a completed moral government, when there will be a perfect system of rewards and punishments, (c) We are not to expect that there will be such manifest and open rewards of obedience, and such direct and constant benefits resulting from religion in this world, as to lead men merely from these to serve and worship God. If religion were always attended with pros perity; if the righteous were never persecuted, were never poor, or were never bereaved, multi tudes would be induced to become religious, as many followed the Saviour,; not because they paw the miracles, but because they did cat of the loaves and fishes, and were filled,' John vi. 26. While, therefore, in the divine administration here it is proper that there should be so many and so marked interpositions in favour of the good as to show that God is the friend of his peo ple, it is not proper that there should be so many that men would be induced to engage in his service for the love of the reward rather than for the sake of the service itself; because they are to be happy, rather than because they love virtue. It may be expected, therefore, that while the general course of the divine administration will be in favour of virtue, there may be much intermingled with this that will appear to be of a contrary kind; much that will be fitted to test the faith of the people of God, and to show that they love his service for its own sake.

V. We have in vs. 28 — 30, a striking instance of the effect which an adherence to principle will produce on the minds of worldly and wicked men. Such men have no love for religion, but they can see that a certain course accords with the views which are professedly held, and that it indicates high integrity. They can see that firmness and consistency are worthy of commendation and reward. They can see, as Nebuchadnezzar did in this case, that such a course will secure the divine favour, and they will be disposed to honour it on that account. For a time, a tortuous course may seem to prosper, but in the end, solid fame, high rewards, honourable offices, and a grateful remembrance after death, follow in the path of strict integrity and unbending virtue.

To the authenticity of this chapter, as to the preceding, objections and difficulties have been urged, sufficient in the view of the objectors to destroy its credibility as a historical narrative. Those objections, which may be seen at length in Bcrtholdt, (pp. 70—72, 285—309,) Bleek, (Theol. Zeitscrift, Drittes Heft, 268, seq..) and Eichhorn (Einlei. iv. 471, seq.,) relate mainly to two points: those derived from the want of historical proofs to confirm the narrative; and those derived from its alleged intrinsic improbability.

I. The former of these, derived from the want of historic confirmation of the truth of the narrative, are summarily the following: (1) That the historical hooks of the Old Testament give no intimation that these remarkable things happened to Nebuchadnezzar, that he was deranged, and driven from his throne, and made to dwell under the open heaven with the beasts of the field — an omission which, it is said, we cannot suppose would have occurred if these things had happened, since the Hebrew writers, on account of the wrongs which Nebuchadnezzar had done to their nation, would have certainly seized on such facts as a demonstration of the divine displeasure against him. (2) There is no record of these events among the heathen writers of antiquity; no writer among the Greeks, or other nations, ever having mentioned them. (3) It is equally remarkable that Josephus, in his narrative of the sickness of Nebuchadnezzar, makes no allusion to any knowledge of this among other nations, and shows that he derived his infor mation only from the sacred hooks of his own people. (4) It is acknowledged by Origen and Jerome that they could find no historical grounds for the truth of this account. (5)1 f these things had occurred, as here related, they would not have been thus concealed, for the king himself took all possible measures by the edict referred to in this chapter, to make them known, and to make a permanent record of them. How could it have happened that all knowledge would have been lost if they had thus occurred? (6) If the edict was lost, how was it ever recovered again? When, and where, and by whom, was it found? If actually issued, it was de signed to make the case known throughout the empire. Why did it fail of producing that effect so as not to have been forgotten? If it was lost, how was the event known? And if it was lost, how could it have been recovered and recorded by the author of this book? Comp. Bertholdt, p. 298.

To these objections, it may he replied, (1) That the silence of the historical books of the Old Testament furnishes no well-founded objection to what is said in this chapter, for none of them pretend to bring down the history of Nebuchadnezzar to the close of his life, or to this period of his life. The hooks of Kings and of Chronicles mention his invasion of the laud of Palestine and of Egypt; they record the fact of his carrying away the children of Israel to Babylon, but they do not profess to make any record of what occurred to him after that, nor of the close of his life. The second hook of Chronicles closes with an account of the removal of the Jews to Babylon, and the carrying away of the sacred vessels of the temple, and the burning of the temple, and the destruction of the city, but does not relate the history of Nebuchadnezzar any farther. 2 Chron. xxxvi. The silence of the book cannot, therefore, be alleged as an argument against anything that may be said to have occurred after that. As the history closes there; as the design was to give a record of Jewish affairs to the carrying away to Baby lon, and not a history of Nebuchadnezzar as such, there is no ground of objection furnished by this silence in regard to anything that might be said to have occurred to Nebuchadnezzar subsequently to this in his own kingdom.

In regard to profane writers, also, nothing can be argued as to the improbability of the account mentioned here from their silence on the subject. It is not remarkable that in the few fragments which are found in their writings respecting the kings and empires of the East, an occurrence of this kind should have been omitted. The general worthlessness or Avant of value of the historical writings of the Greeks in respect to foreign nations, from which we derive most of our knowledge of those nations, is now generally admitted, and is expressly maintained by Niebuhr, and by Sclosser (see Hengstenberg, Die Authentic des Daniel, p. 101), and most of these writers make no allusion at all to Nebuchadnezzar. Even Herodotus, who travelled into the East, and who collected all he could of the history of the world, makes no mention whatever of a conqueror so illustrious as Nebuchadnezzar. How could it be expected that when they have omitted all notice of his conquests; of the great events under him, which exerted so important an effect on the world, there should have been a record of an occurrence like that referred to in this chapter — an occurrence that seems to have ex erted no influence whatever on the foreign relations of the empire? It is remarkable that Josephus, who searched for all that he could find to illustrate the literature and history of the Chaldees, says (Ant. B. x. ch. xi. g 1,) that he could find only the following " histories as all that he had met with concerning this king: Berosus, in the third book of his Chaldaic history; Philostratus, in the history of Judea and of the Phoenicians, who only mentions him in respect to his siege of Tyre; the Indian history of Megasthenes — 'lj/<5i*u — in which the only fact which is mentioned of him is that he plundered Lybiaand Iberia; and the Persian history of Diocles, in which there occurs but one solitary reference to Nebuchadnezzar." To these he adds, in his work against Appian (B. i. 20.) a reference to the " Archives of the Phoenicians," in which it is said that " he conquered Syria and Phoenicia." Berosus is the only one who pretends to give any extended account of him. See Ant. B. x. ch.xi. g 1. All those authorities mentioned by Josephus, therefore, except Berosus, may be set aside, since they have made no allusion to many undeniable facts in the life of Nebuchadnezzar, and, therefore, the events referred to in this chapter may have occurred, though they have not related them. There remain two authors who have noticed Nebuchadnezzar at greater length, Abydenus and Berosus. Abydenus was n. Greek who lived 268 B. C. He wrote, in Greek, an historical account of the Chaldeans, Baby lonians, and Assyrians, only a few fragments of which have teen preserved by Eus cbiup, Cyrill, md Syncellus. Berosus was a Chaldean, and was a priest in the temple of Belus, in the time.f Alexander, and having learned of the Macedonians the Greek language, he went to Greece, and opened a school of astronomy and astrology in the island of Cos, where his productions jcquired for him great fame with the Athenians. Abydenus was his pupil. Berosus wrote three sooks relative to the history of the Chaldeans, of which only some fragments are preserved in

Josephus and Euscbius. As a priest of Bel us he possessed every advantage -which could be desired for obtaining a knowledge of the Chaldeans, and if his work had been preserved it would doubtless be of great value. Both these writers professedly derived their knowledge from the traditions of the Chaldeans, and both should be regarded as good authority.

Berpsus is adduced by Josephus to confirm the truth of the historical records in the Old Tes tament. He mentions, according to Josephus, the deluge in the time of Noah, and the account of the resting of the ark on one of the mountains of Armenia. He gives a catalogue of the descendants of Noah, and " at length comes down to Nabolasser, who was king of Babylon and of the Chaldeans." He then mentions the expedition of his son, Nebuchodonosor (Nebuchad nezzar), against the Egyptians; the capture of Jerusalem; the burning of the temple; and the removal of the Jews to Babylon. He then mentions the manner in which Nebuchadnezzar succeeded to the throne; the way in which he distributed his captives in various parts of Baby lonia; his adorning of the temple of Bolus; his rebuilding the old city of Babylon, and the building of another city on the other side of the river; his adding a new palace to that which his father had built; and the fact that this palace was finished in fifteen days. After these statements respecting his conquests and the magnificence of his capital, Berosus gives the following narrative: " Nebuchodonosor, after he had begun to build the forementioned wall, fell sick — inntautv £('{ dppwtriav — and departed this life — /*£77)AAa£aro TOV @ioi>" — [a phrase meaning to die, see Passow on the word//£rdAXa<7<rco] " when he had reigned forty-three years, whereupon his son, Evil-Merodach, obtained the kingdom." Josephus against Apion, B. 1. g 20. Now this narrative is remarkable, and goes in fact to confirm the statement in Daniel in two respects: (a) It is manifest that Berosus here refers to some sickness in the case of Nebuchadnezzar that was unusual, and that probably preceded, for a considerable time, his death. This appears from the fact, that in the case of the other monarchs whom he mentions in immediate connec tion with this narrative, no sickness is alluded to as preceding their death. This is the case with respect to Neriglissor and Nabounedus — successors of Nebuchadnezzar. See Jos. against Ap. i. 20. There is no improbability in supposing that what Berosus here calls sickness, is the same which is referred to in the chapter before us. Berosus, himself a Chaldean, might not be desirous of stating all the facts about a monarch of his own country so distinguished, and might not be willing to state all that he knew about his being deprived of reason, and about the manner in which he was treated, and yet what occurred to him was so remarkable, and was so well known, that there seemed to be a necessity of alluding to it in some way; and this he did in the most general manner possible. If this were his object, also, he would not be likely to mention the fact that he was restored again to the throne. He would endeavour to make it appear as an ordinary event — a sickness which preceded death — as it may have been the fact that he never was wholly restored so far as to be in perfect health, (b) This statement of Be rosus accords, in respect to time, remarkably with that in Daniel. Both accounts agree that the sickness occurred after he had built Babylon, and towards the close of his reign.

The other author which is referred to, is Abydcnus. The record which he makes is preserved by Eusebius, prsep. Evang. ix. 41, and Chronicon Armeno-latinum, I. p. 59, and is in the fol ftyavtffro. This passage is so remarkable, that I annex a translation of it, as I find it in Prof. Stuart's work on Daniel, p. 122: " After these things," [his conquests which the

writer had before referred to.] " as it is said by the Chaldeans, having ascended his palace, he was seized by some god, and speaking aloud, he said: 'I, Nebuchadnezzar, 0 Babylonians, foretel your future calamity, which neither Belus, my ancestor, nor queen Belis, can persuade the destinies to avert. A Persian mule will come, employing your own divinities as his aux iliaries; and he will impose servitude [upon you]. His coadjutor will be the J/erfe, who is the boast of the Assyrians. Would that, before he places my citizens in such a condition, some Chary bdis or gulf might swallow him up with utter destruction! Or that, turned in a different direction, he might roam in the desert (where are neither cities, nor footsteps of man, but wild beasts find pasturage, and the birds wander.) being there hemmed in by rocks and ravines! May it be my lot to attain to a better end, before such things come into his mind!' Having uttered this prediction, he forthwith disappeared." This passage so strongly resembles tho

account in Dnniel iv., that even Bertholdt (p. 296) admits that it is identical — identiscfi — with it, though he still maintains, that although it refers to mental derangement, it does nothing to confirm the account of his being made to live with wild beasts, eating grass, and being restored again to his throne. The points of agreement in the account of Abydenus and that of Daniel are the following: (1) The account of Abydenus, as Bertholdt admits, refers to mental derangement. Such a mental derangement, and the power of prophecy, were in the

<riew of the ancients closely connected, or were identical, and were believed to be produced by the overpowering inlluem-e of the gods on the soul. The rational powers of the soul were sup posed to he suspended, and the god took entire possession of the body, and through that com municated the knowledge of future events. Comp. D.'ile, do oraculis ethnicorum, p. 172. Eusebius, Chron. Arm. lat. p. 01. In itself considered, moreover, nothing would be more natural than that Nebuchadnezzar, in the malady that came upon him, or when it was coming upon him. would express himself in the manner affirmed by Abydenus respecting the coming of the Persian, and the change that would occur to his own kingdom. If the account in Daniel is true respecting the predictions which he is said to have uttered concerning coming events (ch. ii.), nothing would be more natural than that the mind of the monarch would be filled with the anticipation of these events, and that he would give utterance to his anticipations in a time of mental excitement. (2) There is a remarkable agreement between Abydenus and Daniel in regard to the time and the place in which what is said of the king occurred. Accord ing to Abydenus, the prophetic ecstacy into which he fell was at the close of ail his military expeditions, and occurred in the same place, and in the same circumstances, which are men tioned in the book of Daniel — upon his palace — apparently as he walked upon the roof, or upon some place where he had a clear view of the surrounding city which he had built — avalla*; ixi ra I3a<n\fi'ia. (3) The accounts in Abydenus and in Daniel harmonize so far as they relate to the God by whom what occurred was produced. In Daniel it is attributed to the true God, and not to any of the objects of Chaldean worship. It is remarkable that in Abydenus it is not ascribed to an idol, or to any god worshipped by the Chaldees, but to God simply, as to a God that was now known — KnraaXt^cirj 5fw orso) 6rj. It would seem from this that even the Chaldec tradition did not attribute what was said by Nebuchadnezzar, or what occurred to him, to tiny of the gods worshipped in Babylon, but to a foreign god, or to one whom they were not accustomed to worship. (4) In the language which Nebuchadnezzar is reported by Abyde nus to have used respecting the return of the Persian king after his conquest, there is a remarkable resemblance to what is said in Daniel, showing that, though the language is applied to different things in Daniel and in Abydenus, it had a common origin. Thus, in the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar, as reported by Abydenus, it is said, 'may he, returning through other ways, be borne through the desert where there are no cities, where there is no path for men, where wild beasts graze, and the fowls live, wandering about in the midst of rocks and caves.' These considerations show that the Chaldean traditions strongly corroborate the account here; or, that there are things in these traditions which cannot be accounted for except on the sup position of the truth of some such occurrence as that which is here stated in Daniel. The sum of the evidence from history is. (a) that very few things are known of this monarch from, profane history; (b) that there is nothing in what is known of him which makes what is here stated improbable; (c) that there are things related of him which har monize with what is here affirmed; and (d) that there are traditions which can be best ex plained by sonic such supposition as that the record in this chapter is true.

As to the objection that if the edict was promulgated it would not be likely to be lost, or the memory of it fade away, it is sufficient to observe that almost all of the edicts, the laws, and the statutes of the Assyrian and Chaldean princes have perished with all the other records of their history, and almost all the facts pertaining to the personal or the public history of these monarchs are now unknown. It cannot be believed that the few fragments which we now have of their writings are all that were ever composed, and in the thing itself there is no more im probability that this edict should be lost than any other, or that though it may have been kept by a Hebrew residing among them, it should not have been retained by the Chaldeans themselves. As to the question which has been asked, if this were lost how it could have been recovered again, it is sufficient to remark that, for anything that appears, it never ivas lost in the sense that no one had it in his possession. It would undoubtedly come into the hands of Daniel if he were, according to the account in his book, then in Babylon; and it is not probable that so remarkable a document would be suffered by him to be lost. The fact that it was preserved by him, is all that is needful to answer the questions on that point. It may have been swept away with other matters in the ruin that came upon the Chaldean records in their own country; it has been preserved where it was most important that it should be preserved — in a book w'hero it would be to all ages, and in all lands, a signal proof that God reigns over kings, and that he has power to humble and abase the proud.

II. There is a second slass of objections to the credibility of the account, in this chapter quite distinct from that just noticed. They are based on what is alleged to be the intrinsic improba bility that the things which are said to have occurred to Nebuchadnezzar should have happened. It cannot be alleged, indeed, that it is incredible that a monarch should become a maniac — for the kings of the earth arc no more exempt from this terrible malady than their subjects; but the objections here referred to relate to the statements respecting the manner in which it is said that this monarch was treated, and that he lived during this long period. These objections may be briefly noticed. (1) It has been objected, that it is wholly improbable that a monarch at the head of such an empire would, if he became incapable of administering the affairs of government, be FO utterly neglected as the representation here would im ply: — that he would be suffered to wander from his palace to live with beasts: to fare as they fared, and to become in his whole appearance so tike a beast. It is indeed admitted by those who make this objection, that there is no improbability that the calamity would befall a kJvg as well as other men; and Michaelis has remarked that it is even more probable that a monarch would bo thus afflicted than others, (Anm. Z. Dan. p. 41, Comp. Bertholdt, p. 304,) but it is alleged that it is wholly improbable that one so high in office and in power would be treated with the utter neglect which is stated here. " Is it credible," says Bertholdt, (p. 300 — 303,)

" that the royal family, and the royal counsellor!*, should have shown so little care or concern for a monarch who had come into a state so perfectly helpless? Would no one have sought him out, and brought him back, if he had wandered so far away? Could he anywhere in the open plains, and the regions about Babylon, destitute of forests, have concealed himself so that no one could have found him? It could only have been by a miracle, that one could have wan dered about for so long a time, amidst the dangers which must have befallen him, without having been destroyed by wild beasts, or falling into some form of irrccovarable ruin. What an unwise policy in a government to exhibit to newly conquered people so dishonourable a spectacle!"

To this objection it may be replied, (a) that its force, as it was formerly urged, may be some what removed by a correct interpretation of the chapter, and a more accurate knowledge of the disease which came upon the king, and of the manner in which he was actually treated. Accord ing to some views formerly entertained respecting the nature of the malady, it would have been impossible, I admit, to have defended the narrative. In respect to these views, see Notes on ver. 25. It may appear, from the fair interpretation of the whole narrative, that nothing more occurred than was natural in the circumstances, (b) The supposition that he was left to wan der without any kind of oversight or guardianship, is entirely gratuitous, and is unauthorized by the account which Nebuchadnezzar gives of what occurred. This opinion has been partly formed from a false interpretation of the phrase in ver. 36 — '• and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me," — as if they had sought him when he was wandering with a view to find out where he was; whereas the true meaning of that passage is, that after his restoration they sought unto him, or applied to him as the head of the empire, as they had formerly done, (c) There is some probability from the passage in ver. 15 — " leave the stump of his roots in the earth, even with a, band of iron and brass'' — that Nebuchadnezzar was secxircd in the manner in which maniacs often have been, and that in his rage he was carefully guarded from all danger of injuring himself. See Notes on ver. 15. (c)0n the supposition that he was not, still there might have been all proper care taken to guard him. All that may be implied when it is said that he " was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen," &e., may have been that this was his propensity in that state; that he had this roving disposition, and was disposed rather to wander in fields and groves, than to dwell in the abodes of men; and that he was driven by this pro pensity, not by men, to leave his palace, and to take up his residence in parks or groves — any where rather than in human habitations. This has been not an uncommon propensity with maniacs, and there is no improbability in supposing that this was permitted by those who had the care of him, as far as was consistent with his safety, and with what was due to him as a monarch, though his reason was driven from its throne. In the parks attached to the palace; in the large pleasure grounds, that were not impi'obably stocked with various kinds of animals, as a sort of royal menagerie, there is no improbability in supposing that he may have been allowed at proper times, and with suitable guards, to roam, nor that the fallen and hum bled monarch may have found, in comparatively lucid intervals, a degree of pleasant amuse ment in such grounds, nor even that it might be supposed that this would contribute to his restoration to health. Nor, on any supposition in regard to these statements, even admitting that there was a great degree of criminal inattention on the part of his friends, would his treat ment have been worse than what has usually occurred in respect to the insane. Up to quite a recent period, and even now in many civilised lands, the insane have been treated with tho most gross neglect, and with the severest cruelty, even by their friends. Left to wander where they chose without a protector; unshaven and unwashed; the si ort of the idle and the vicious; thrown into common jails among felons; bound with heavy chains to the cold walls of dungeons; confined in cellars or garrets with no fire in the coldeut weather; with insuffi cient clothing, perhaps entirely naked, and in the midst of the most disgusting filth, — such treatment, even in Christian lands, and by Christian people, may show that in a heathen land, five hundred years before the light of Christianity dawned upon the world, it is not wholly in credible that an insane monarch migJd have been treated in the manner described in this chapter. If the best friends now may so neglect, or treat with such severity, an insane son or daughter, there is no improbability in supposing, that in an age of comparative barbarism there may have been as little humanity as is implied in this chapter. The following extracts from the Second Annual Report of the Prison Discipline Society, (Boston*) will show what has occurred in the nineteenth century, in this Christian land, and in the old commonwealth of Massachu setts — a commonwealth distinguished for morals, and for humane feeling, and will demostrate at the same time that what is here stated about the monarch of heathen Babylon is not unworthy of belief. They refer to the treatment of lunatics in that commonwealth before the establishment of the hospital for the insane at Worcester. " In Massachusetts, by an examination made with

care, about thirty lunatics have been found in prison. In one prison were found three; in an other five; in another six, and in another ten. It is a source of great complaint with the sheriffs and jailers that they must receive such persons, because they have no suitable accom modations for them. Of those last mentioned, one was found in an apartment in which he had been nine years. He had a wreath of rags around his body, and another around his neck, this was all his clothing. lie had no bed, chair, or bench. Two or three rough planks were Btrewed around the room; a heap of filthy straw, like the nest of swine, was in tho corner. EEe

had built a bird's nest of mud in the iron grate of his den. Connected with his wretched apart ment was a dark dungeon, having no orifice for the admission of light, heat, or air, except the iron door, about two and a half feet square, opening into it from the prison. The other luna tics in the same prison were scattered about in different apartments, with thieves and mur derers, and persons under arrest, but not yet convicted of guilt. In the prison of five lunatics, they were confined in separate cells, which were almost dark dungeons. It was difficult after the door was open to see them distinctly. The ventilation was so incomplete that more than one person on entering them has found the air so fetid as to produce nausea, and almost vomit ing. The old straw on which they were laid, and their filth}' garments, were such as to make their insanity more hopeless, and at one time it was not considered within the province of the physician to examine particularly the condition of the lunatics. In these circumstances any improvement of their minds could hardly be expected. Instead of having three out of four restored to reason, as is the fact in some of the favoured Lunatic Asylums, it is to be feared that in these circumstances, some who might otherwise be restored would become incurable, and that others might lose their lives, to say nothing of present c. iffering. In the prison in which were six lunatics their condition was less wretched. But they were sometimes an annoyance, and sometimes a sport to the convicts; and even the apartment in which the females were confined opened into the yard of the men; there was an injurious interchange of obscenity and profanity between them, which was not restrained by the presence of the keeper. In the prison, or house of correction, so called, in which were ten lunatics, two were found about seventy years of age, a male and female, in the same apartment of an upper story. The female was lying upon aheap of straw under a broken window. The snow in a severe storm was beating through the window, and lay upon the straw around her withered body, which was partially covered with a few filthy and tattered garments. The man was lying in the cor ner of the room in a similar situation, except that he was less exposed to the storm. The former had been in this apartment six, and the latter twenty-one years. Another lunatic in the same prison was found in a plank apartment of the first story, where he had been eight years. During this time he had never left the room but twice. The door of this apartment had not been opened in eighteen months. The food was furnished through a small orifice in the door. The room was warmed by no fire: and still the M'oman of the house said 'he 7tad never froze.' As he was seen through the orifice of the door, the first question was, 'Is that a human being?' The hair was gone from one side of his head, and his eyes were like balls of fire. In the cellar of the same prison were five lunatics. The windows of this cellar were no defence against the storm, and, as might be supposed, the woman of the house said, 'We have a sight to do to keep them from freezing.' There was no fire in this cellar which could be felt by four of these lunatics. One of the five had a little fire of turf in an apartment of the cellar by herself. She was, however, infuriate, if any one came near her. The woman was com mitted to this cellar seventeen years ago. The apartments are about six feet by eight. They are made of coarse plank, and have an orifice in the door for the admission of light and air, about six inches by four. The darkness was such in two of these apartments, that nothing could be seen by looking through the orifice in the door. At the same time there was a poor lunatic in each A man who has grown old was committed to one of them in 1810. and had lived in it seventeen years. An emaciated female was fouud in a similar apartment, in the dark, without fire, almost without covering, where she had been nearly two years. A coloured woman in another, in which she had been six years; and a miserable man in another, in which he had been four years."

(2) It is asked by Bertholdt as an objection, (p. 301,) whether "it is credible that one who had been for so long a time a maniac, would be restored again to the throne; and whether the government would be again placed in his hands, without any apprehension that he would relapse into the same state? Or whether it can be believed that the lives and fortunes of so many millions would be again entrusted to his will and power?" To these questions it may be replied: (a) That if he was restored to his reason he had a rigid to the throne, and it might not have been a doubtful point whether he should he restored to it or not. (6) It is probable that during that time a regency was appointed, and that there would be a hope entertained that he would be restored. Undoubtedly during the continuation of this malady, the government would be, as was the case during the somewhat similar malady of George III. of Great Britain, placed in the hands of others, and unless there was a revolution, or an usurpation, he would be of course restored to his throne on the recovery of his reason, (c) To this it may be added, that he was a monarch who had been eminently successful in his conquests; who had done much to enlarge the limits of the empire, and to adorn the capital; and that much was to be apprehended from the character of his legal successor, Evil-Merodach (Hengstenberg 113,); and that if he were displaced, they who were then the chief officers of the nation had reason to suppose that, in accordance with oriental usage on the accession of a new sovereign, they would lose their places.

(3) It has been asked also, as an objection, whether "it is not to be presumed that Nebuchad nezzar, on the supposition that he was restored from so fearful a malady, would not have em ployed all the means in his power to suppress the knowledge of it; or whether, if any commu nication was made in regard to it, pains would not have been taken to give a colouring to the account by suppressing the real truth, and by attributing the affliction to some other rause?" Bertholdt, 301. To this it may be replied: (a) that if the representation here made of the cause of his malady is correct, that it was a divine judgment on him for his pride, and that

God's design in bringing it on him was that he himself might be made known, it is reasonable to presume that, on his restoration, there would be such a divine influence on the mind of the monarch, as to lead him to make this proclamation, or this public recognition of the Most High", (6) that the edict seems to have been made, not as a matter of policy, but under the fresh recol lection of a restoration from so terrible a calamity; (c) that Nebuchadnezzar seems to have been a man who had a conscience that prompted him to a decided acknowledgment of divine inter position; (d) that he had a strong religious propensity (comp. ch. iii.), and was ready to make any public acknowledgment of that which he regarded as divine; and (e) that perhaps he sup posed that, by stating the truth as it actually occurred, a better impression might be made than already existed in regard to the nature of the malady. It may have been an object also with him to convince his subjects that, although he had been deprived of his reason, he was now in fact restored to a sound mind.

(4.) Another ground of objection has been urged by Eichhorn, Bertholdt, and others, derived from the character of the edict. It is said that " the narrative represents Nebuchadnezzar at one time as an orthodox Jew, setting forth his views almost in the very words used in the writ ings of the Jews, and which only a Jew would employ, (see vs. 2, 3, 34 — 37,) and then again as a mere idolater, using the language which an idolater would employ, and still acknowledging the reality of idol gods, vs. 8, 9, 18." To this it may be replied, that this very circumstance is rather a confirmation of the truth of the account than otherwise. It is just such an account as we should suppose that a monarch, trained up in idolatry, and practising it all his life, and yet suddenly, and in this impressive manner, made acquainted with the true God, would be likely to give. In an edict published by such a monarch under such circumstances, it would be strange if there should be no betrayal of the fact that he had been a worshipper of heathen gods, nor wpuld it be strange that when he disclosed his dream to Daniel, asking him to inter pret it, and professing to believe that he was under the influence of inspiration from above, he should trace it to the gods in general, vs. 8, 9, 18. And, in like manner, if the thing actually occurred, as is related, it would be certain that he would use such language in describing it as an ' orthodox Jew' might use. It is to be remembered that he is represented as obtaining his view of what was meant by the vision from Daniel, and nothing is more probable than that he would use such language as Daniel would have suggested. It could not be supposed that one who had been an idolater all his life would soon efface from his mind all the impressions made by the habit of idolatry, so that no traces of it would appear in a proclamation on an occasion like this; nor could it be supposed that there would be no recognition of God as the true God. Nothing would be more natural than such an intermingling of false notions with the true. Indeed, there is in fact scarcely any circumstance in regard to this chapter that has more the air of authenticity, nor could there well be anything more probable in itself, than what is here stated. It is just such an intermingling of truth with falsehood as we should expect in a mind trained in heathenism, and yet this is a circumstance which would not be very likely to occur to one who attempted a forgery, or who endeavored to draw the character of a heathen mon arch in such circumstances without authentic materials. If the edict was the work of a Jew, he would have been likely to represent its author without any remains of heathenism in his mind; if it were the work of a heathen, there would have been no such recognition of the true God. If it is a mere fiction, the artifice is too refined to have been likely to occur, to attempt to draw him in this state of mind, where there was an intermingling of falsehood with truth; of the remains of all his old habits of thinking, with new and momentous truths that had just begun to dawn on his mind. The supposition that will best suit all the circumstances of the -\ise, and be liable to the fewest objections, is, that the account is an unvarnished statement of what actually occurred. On the whole subject of the objections to this chapter, the reader may consult Hengstenberg, Die Authentic des Daniel, pp. 100 — 119. For many of the remarks here made, I ain indebted to that work. Comp. further the Notes on vs. 25, seq. of the chapter.