argument which refers the ten horns of the Roman beast to the ten Gothic states settled within the limits of the empire, falls to the ground.

Thus, we conceive, it has been made clear that the evidence of history requires that Mr. Faber's intermediate epoch, or that of the latter three times and half, must, on his own principles of inquiry, be lowered, precisely in the same ratio with his first epoch of the seven times of the Gentiles-a date resulting altogether from the former, and in no sense a primary root of computation. Our computed historical root is, on the contrary, in every sense an independent and primary one; and from it our intermediate epoch issues, to be subjected to the tests of history and of other prophetic periods. Of the success of our efforts towards replacing these important errors, by an outline constructed on the strictest chronological principles, our readers will decide.

As regards the author's arrangement of the rest of the prophetic periods, that of the 2300 days or years of Daniel's vision of the ram and he-goat chiefly calls for notice.

The root of this period he refers to "the standing up of the ram "(Dan. viii. 3, 20), or "the rise of the Persian monarchy (vol. ii. p. 166); assigning to it an epoch, we think rather inconsistently, 127 years anterior to that of his sacred calendar or almanack of prophecy, that is, the year B. c. 784. This date, like that of the seven times, is, however, purely fictitious. "The precise year in which this monarchy arose cannot," says Mr. Faber, "be determined from history, though we may lay down, with some little care and attention, the time about which it arose *" The substance of his process for "laying down" the lex chronologica is as follows.

Oriental writers relate that the Persian throne was occupied by two dynasties of princes before Alexander's conquest: the first or Pischdadian dynasty, consisting of eleven reigns; and the second, or Kaianian, of nine reigns. To these reigns an incredible number of years, from 100 to 1000 years, each are assigned. These periods Mr. Faber justly rejects, and substitutes in their place mean periods of twenty-two to twenty-four years for each reign, agreeably to Sir I. Newton's principles. But the twenty reigns of both dynasties will, at twenty-two years each, amount to 440 years; and at twenty-four years each, to 480. These periods, added to the epoch of Alexander's conquest of the Persian, B. c. 331, will ascend to the years B. c. 771 and 811 respectively; and hence our author assumes "that the Persian monarchy must have been founded some time between the years B. c. 811 and B. c. 771+." "Such then," he adds, "is the

chronological commencement of the vision: " that is, some point within an assumed interval of forty years; being four times the latitude assumed by the writer in the case of the seven times. Descending 2300, he arrives at the forty years between A.D. 1490 and 1530 for the chronological termination of the vision* and the æra of the Reformation, A. D. 1517, falling within this interval, he there fixes" the incipient cleansing of the sanctuary" (to be completed at his epoch for the expiration of the seven times, A. D. 1864), and termination of the 2300 years †. Again, ascending 2300 years from A. D. 1517, he finds "the year B. c. 784 for the commencement of the period, and for the rise of the Persian monarchy;" that is, a point of time "between the year B. C. 811 and the year B. c. 771," as before assumed ."

It follows, that in this case, as well as in that of the seven times, the radical epoch of computation depends altogether upon the subordinate æra; for when a latitude of no less than forty years, even if well established, is given to any epoch, that epoch is truly resolved into nothing. Let us, however, inquire into the validity of Mr Faber's elements for determining this loosest of all the epochs ever calculated, the one nevertheless assumed by our author as adequate to fix the commencement of the momentous prediction" concerning the daily sacrifice."

I. As we fortunately possess the laterculus of Persian monarchs, from Cyrus to Alexander, mathematically fixed in time, the validity of the epochs resulting from Mr. Faber's mean reigns may readily be brought to the test of truth. Between his Persian æra, в. c. 784, as corrected by the assumed termination of the 2300 years and the Macedonian conquest B. C. 331, the interval is 453 years, for the twenty reigns of the Pischdadian and Kaianian dynasties-a mean of twenty-two years and two-thirds for each reign. Of these reigns, eleven belong to the Pischdadian line, and nine to the Kaianian; and Kai-khosru, Lohrasf, and Gushtasf, the third, fourth, and fifth princes of the latter, Mr. Faber identifies with Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius Hystaspis . Now from Kai-khosru to Alexander are seven reigns, according to the above account; and 22} years, the mean of each reign, multiplied by 7, gives 159 years for the whole interval. Ascending, therefore, 159 years from the year B. c. 331, when Alexander overthrew the Persian empire, we obtain the year B. c. 490, for Mr. Faber's æra of the reign of Cai-khosru, or Cyrus; the times of Lohrasf, or Cambyses; and of Gushtasf, or Darius Hystaspis, according to our author, following at intervals of twenty-two years and two-thirds us now call in the assistance of Ptolemy, and synchronise his + Vol. ii. pp. 176, 178-181. § Vol. ii. p. 169.

* Vol. ii. p. 176.
Vol. ii. p. 180.

Let

chronological opinions, founded on astronomical observation, with Mr. Faber's.

Kai-khosru, or Cyrus.

467. Lohrasf, or Cambyses.

445. Gushtasf, or Darius Hystaspis

Be it remarked, that Ptolemy is the Babylonian æra of Cyrus, while the Persian ascends twenty-two years higher, or to the first year of the 55th Olympiad, B. c. 560-559, as all the best profane authorities agree*. The former exceeding Mr. Faber's results by forty-eight years, and the latter by seventy.

It is surely needless to ask the reader, whether any dependence is to be placed upon calculations which, in the only instances to which the chronological test can be applied, produce results so widely distant from the truth as the case of Cyrus and his two immediate successors. It is plain that our author should have adopted the fixed epoch of Cyrus for his chronological base, and then modelled his calculation of the preceding thirteen Pischdadian and Kaianian princes so as to consist with his terminating date of the 2300 years.

Thus far, it is hoped, we have shewn the futility of attempting to regulate prophecy by such chronological materials; and this from data drawn exclusively from our author's principles of inquiry.

2. But Mr. Faber's collation of the Greek and Oriental reigns above that of Gushtasf, or Darius Hystaspis, is altogether baseless; because Lohrasf, the alleged predecessor of Gushtasf, was the contemporary and colleague of Bocktanassar, or Nebuchadnezzar, in his expeditions, according to the Oriental writers† ; and therefore not Cambyses the son of Cyrus, but the Cyaxares I. of the Greeks, and the Ahasuerus, or Assuerus, of the books of Daniel and Tobit (Dan. ix. 1, Tobit xiv. 15), the father of Darius the Mede. The history of Lohrasf is, besides, in other respects, that of Cyaxares : and when he is said to have been the father of Gushtasf, the latter is taken for Darius the Mede, as Sir Isaac Newton justly remarks (Chron. p. 374), although the general history of Gushtasf is that of Darius Hystaspis. It follows, that the reigns of Darius the Mede, of Cyrus, and of Cambyses, are altogether omitted between those of Lohrasf and Gushtasf in the Oriental catalogue: Xerxes is likewise left out and if we descend to the eighth and ninth ofthe Kaianian princes, Darah I. and Darah II., the last of whom was conquered by Alexander-i. e. Darius Nothus and Darius Coda

* Diodorus, Thallus, Castor, Polybius, and Phlegon.-Eus. Pr. Evang. Lib. x. &c. It Newt. ubi supra.

+ See Newt. Chron., p. 374.

mannus we shall find a hiatus of three reigns more; viz. Artaxerxes Mnemon, Artaxerxes Ochus, and Arogus, or Arses*.

If, therefore, not less than seven reigns are wanting in the Kaianian family of the Orientals, how many may not be wanting in the more ancient Pischdadian dynasty; and what dependence can be placed upon computations founded on such data?

3. Learned men agree that the Pischdadian family represent the ancient Assyrian line, and the Kaianian the line of the Medes and Persians, who succeeded it: the old Assyrian dynasty being prefixed to the Oriental histories of Persia, because Persia formed part of that empire, in the same manner as it was prefixed in the "Persica," or Persian histories, of Hellanicus, of Ctesias, and of Callisthenes.

With this corresponds the reference of Caiumeras, the first Pischdadian monarch, to the age of the dispersion of mankind, by all the best Oriental authorities; and if there be any dependence whatever to be placed on their accounts, the time of Gjemschid, the sixth of the Pischdadians, is astronomically fixed to the eighteenth century before the Christian æra, because it was from observation made in his reign that the Persian intercalary period of 1440 solar years, or the cycle of Gjemschid, was constructed; and 960 years of the second period had elapsed

* The Kaianian and Greek lists will stand as follows:

Oriental

1. Kai-kobad.

2. Kai-kaus.

3. Kai-khosru.

4. Lohrasf

True.

5. Gushtasf.

6 Kai-ardeshir.

7. Queen Homai.

8. Dara I.

9. Dara II.

10. Secander, or Ascander.

Darius Codamannus
Alexander.

See Newt. Chr. p. 373-375. We preserve Mr. Faber's orthography, so far as he mentions the names.

+ Among these is the Persian historian Mir-khond, Emir-khond or Khondemir, who, nevertheless, reduces the period of the twenty reigns preceding Alexander to 971 years. This inconsistent proceding our author adduces as a precedent for his own reduction to about half that period. (Vol. ii. p. 169.) But, whatever degree of weight may be attributed to the traditional histories of the Persian writers, none can be given to their attempts at chronological computation, which are invariably absurd.

when the modern Persian empire was overthrown by the Saracens, and its last monarch, Isdegerdes or Yezdegerd, ceased to reign, A. D. 632*. We say the second period, because the last necessarily originated in the fourth century before the Christian æra, at which time the Pischdadians, under any supposition, had long ceased to exist.

It follows, that as many of the Kaianian princes are demonstrably omitted in the Oriental catalogues-so are many of the Pischdadians; and that any computation founded on the list of twenty princes which is extant, including both dynasties, must necessarily be as ill-based as it will be loose and erroneous. Such data, we trust, will never again be brought forward to regulate the times and periods of prophecy.

Let us now see to what chronological radix the 2300 years should be referred, if, as Mr. Faber assumes, it must be identical with the date of the standing up of the Ram, or epoch of the Persian monarchy.

The Ptolemaic æra of Cyrus falls in the year в. c. 538, as above; but this is the date at which he succeeded Darius the Mede, called Nabonadius by the Babylonians,-who habitually gave to foreigners a Chaldean patronymic (Dan. i.7, &c.), -on the throne of Babylon. The prince last mentioned reigned seventeen years, according to Ptolemy, from the time of the taking of Babylon by himself and Cyrus, in the year B. c. 555-an epoch which stands one year higher according to the data furnished by the Prophets. At that time Cyrus reigned over Elam, or Persia proper, according to both sacred and profane history. But his reign commenced not until the end of that of Belshazzar, because Elam was one of the provinces of Belshazzar's empire, In its chief city, Shushan, or Susa, dwelt the prophet Daniel, at least for a time (Dan. viii. 1, 2); and there he had an opportunity of making known to Cyrus the prophecies concerning him. Hence we may see an efficient cause for the revolt of Cyrus and his alliance with the king of the Medes; and hence we may behold the rise of the Medo-Persian ram and bear on the fall of the Babylonian lion.

Profane authorities, as above, fix the Persian æra of Cyrus to the first year of the 55th Olympiad, or в. c. 560-559. The

*See Hyde "De Relig. vet. Pers." &c. chaps. xiv. and xvii. who cites a host of Oriental authorities on the subject.

That is, seventy years below the era of the prophetic siege and of Jeremiah's mission, an. xiii. Josiah, B. c. 556, as above. See Isai. xxiii. 15; Jerem. xxv. 12; xxvii. 7; Dan. v. 30, 31; ix. 1,2. Seventy years was also the period of the Babylonian empire, according to Ptolemy-that is, from the year of Nabonassar 123, B.C. 625, to an. Nab. 193, B. c. 555-and the number of reigns is the same in both cases.