shame to dispute his age; and we therefore conclude, that either fourteen and a half or fifteen years are to be subtracted from A. D. 25, to find the beginning of Tiberius' reign; and, by either process, we are carried to A. D. 10, and the latter or former portion of the year. Having this epoch, as a fair goal, we set out from it to reach A. D. 68. The length of the reign of Tiberius was from August 28th, A. D. 10, to March 16, or 26th, A. D. 37, a period of twenty-five years, six months, and twenty days; the length of the reign of his successor, Caius Caligula, was three years and eight months; and of his successor, Claudius Cæsar, thirteen years, eight months, and twenty days; and of his successor, Nero Cæsar, thirteen years and eight days; after him Galba reigned till the third of January following, and was murdered on the fifteenth; his reign was seven months and seven days; Otho next reigned, three months and three days; Vitellius next reigned, eight months and five days, and was killed on the third of Casleu, answering to November; Vespasian, however, began his reign on the fifth of the Nones, or Ides of July preceding, and in his second year, about the month of September, Jerusalem was destroyed.

While the historian allows seven months and seven days to Galba, we allow him but five months and nineteen days; and we assign Vitellius three months and six days, because they were cotemporary with other monarchs. This fact is admitted by historians, and is very manifest by a strict addition of the days and years of their predecessors, and seeing the time of the year when Nero ended his reign, and comparing this date with the known days when Galba and Vitellius ended their reigns, and the date of Vespasian's election to the purple. According to this, Nero ended his reign about the 14th of July, 66 A. D.; and Galba's images were thrown down,

and Otho was declared emperor; and Vespasian was declared emperor in July following; but Vitellius was his cotemporary till November, or Casleu. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, are omitted from Ptolemy's canon, showing that none of them reigned a single year; and Dio estimates the sum of their reigns, seriately, at about a year, which is close to what we reckoned it, before knowing his testimony. The sum of all the reigns, as thus explained, allowing one year and three months for Vespasian's, to the fall of Jerusalem, is fifty-eight years, one month, and fifteen days; and, adding this sum to the first year of Tiberius, August 28th, A. D. 10, or ten years, seven months, and twenty-seven days, we are brought to A. D. 68 and nine months. In this estimate there may be an excess of a few days, but we think no greater exceptions can be taken to it. The common epoch assigned to the associate reign of Tiberius, is A. D. 11, and we think we have shown good reasons for not adopting it; but if any think that this date is settled as much by testimony, as by the want of it, we would say, that though the epoch of the founding of Rome is supposed to be 753 years B. C., and, by consequence, the first of Tiberius synchronizes with 11 A. D., yet all must be aware that time never was measured by a more uncertain chronometer than the Roman year before the days of Julius Cæsar. Chronologers often rest content with assigning events to one year, which belong to another, because the want of time and facilities prevents their treating the subject with more accuracy.

The reader must perceive that we have spent much time and labor to be exceedingly accurate in our chronology; and that we differ from no chronologers of reputat on by any large sum of years, but mostly about a yea or two; and where we differ, we think he will allow

two i

37

that we do so for sufficient reasons. We are indebted mainly to Archbishop Usher, Prideaux, Josephus, Whiston, Townsend, and a few others, for our facts. We prefer to follow such profound men as these, to referring the reader to a host of almost irresponsible authorities. Whatever is excellent on the chronology of the eras reviewed, is embodied in the writings of these men. One thing we may be permitted to observe; that our chronology was not made to suit a theory, but, in the main, was decided upon before our theory was planned, and was, indeed, the very origin of it.

SECTION II.

BEGINNING OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS.

1. Epoch of the Cyrus Decree. The prophecy of the seventy weeks primarily designates the decree of Cyrus as their beginning epoch. In settling this point, we are necessarily governed by the strictest laws of just criticism, to avoid censure on the one part, and on the other to ascertain the truth. "To find the true sense of a written document, is often difficult and embarrassing, even when of recent date and in our own language, but the difficulty is greatly enhanced when it is of ancient date, and in a foreign tongue." Even the acts of our legislatures, framed with the most technical care, require judges of profound and discriminating learning to interpret them precisely. Yet there are rules of exposition which embody infallible principles of guidance to certainty; they are alike applicable to all species of writing, whether human or divine, and, if followed unvaryingly,

are certain to clear the meaning of the text of doubts, unless the composition be either ambiguous, or symbolic, or senseless. Two of these we introduce for our safeguards: the first is, that "the most simple and obvious sense of a passage is always its true one; " and the second is, that "no interpretation can be just which brings out of any passage a sense that is repugnant to the ascertained nature of things."-(Stewart, Horne, Buck, Bib. Rep.) In addition to these, another principle, of equal validity and importance, is, that every passage is to be taken in its literal sense, unless it be inconsistent with common sense to do so.

In applying these rules to Gabriel's annunciation to Daniel, it is at once obvious that if the words he uses are to be taken in their plain, obvious, and literal sense, then the decree of Cyrus, to restore and build Jerusalem, is that to which primary reference is had. Nothing can shake this position, unless it can be fully and unanswerably demonstrated, that, from the very nature of things, they can not by possibility apply to this decree.

In the first place, no one has ever yet attempted to deny this for any other reason than that, according to the common mode of interpreting the seventy weeks, they fail to equal the space of time between that decree and the death of Christ. But surely, every one can see that the simple and obvious meaning of the text can not be made to yield to a mere theory, however plausible. To allow this, is at once to abandon all hopes of arriving at the truth of any writing, and especially, to make the word of God of none effect. That it may be the more impressed upon the mind that the obvious import of the angel's message is a reference to the Cyrus decree, we would, secondly, place the case in its own simple light. More than one hundred and fifty years before the empire›

*

*

of Cyrus, Isaiah prophesied, saying, "thus sayeth the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue the nations before him: I will loose the loins of kings to open before him the two-leaved gates, and the gates shall not be shut, * that thou mayest know that I, the Lord, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel. For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name." "That confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers; that sayeth to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be inhabited; and to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built, and I will raise up the decayed places thereof. That sayeth to the deep Be dry, and I will dry up the rivers: that sayeth to Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem Thou shalt be built and to the temple, Thy foundations shall be laid."-Is. xliv. xlv. Here is a plain statement, by God himself, that a great decree for the restoring and building of Jerusalem should be made by Cyrus: and the language is identical with that of Gabriel. Now, although there were three other decrees for the repairing of Jerusalem, yet none of them are rendered important by such preeminent prophetic emphasis as this of Cyrus.

Again; it is further evident, that this decree was to be given at the end of the seventy year's captivity; and for such a decree, Daniel was praying when Gabriel de scended, as is evinced by the fact that he himself says, that he understood from Jeremiah, that at "the end of seventy years" the restoration of Israel should transpire; and he knew that it could not take place without an imperial decree to that effect. While praying, therefore, it is plain that he then expected the decree to be given by Cyrus, as he knew that the seventy years were about at