sides, formed of solid brass, thus mentioned by Isaiah in a prophecy against Babylon :-"I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron," Isa. xlv. 2. Three towers were erected at proper distances between each two of those gates, and three between every corner and the west gate on either side; and those towers were ten feet higher than the walls, especially in those parts of the walls necessary for defence. The whole number of those towers amounted to two hundred and fifty. In the interior of the city the streets crossed each other at right angles, twenty-five streets extending froin the same number of gates on one side of the walls to the corresponding gates on the opposite side. In the numerous squares into which the city was subdivided stood the houses, rising from three to four storeys in height, and adorned with every kind of ornament and design. The palaces at each end of the bridge which crossed the river in the centre of the city have already been mentioned. Those palaces are said to have been connected with each other by a passage running under the bed of the river. The old palace stood on the east end of the bridge, near which was the famous Temple of Belus, which inclosed the Tower of Babel, the Birs Nemroud of modern times. The areas which inclosed those buildings were of great extent. The new palace, which stood on the west side of the river, was seven and a half miles in compass, and was surrounded with three walls within each other. Those walls, as well as those of the other palace, were embellished with an infinite variety of sculptured devices, representing all kinds of animals, amongst which a curious hunting-piece is mentioned, in which Semiramis on horseback was in the act of throwing a javelin at a leopard, and Ninus was seen piercing a lion. The new palace was built by Nebuchadnezzar, and in it Alexander the Great expired. Near this palace were the Hanging Gardens, so celebrated among the Greeks. They were constructed by Nebuchadnezzar to please the taste of his queen Amytis, a daughter of Astyages, king of Media, who, accustomed to the lofty hills and forests of her own country, desired to have an imitation of them in the immense plain in which Babylon was situated. Those gardens were raised on arches, and contained a square of four hundred feet on every side. They were carried up to the same height as the walls by several large terraces one above another, and the ascent to each terrace was by stairs ten feet wide. The arches on which the gardens were piled were raised on other substantial arches one above another, strengthened by a surrounding wall twenty-two feet thick. On the top of the arches were first laid four large flat stones, sixteen feet long and four broad, over which was a layer of reeds mixed with quantities of bitumen, on which were two rows of bricks closely cemented together. The earth laid thereon was so deep that large trees could take root, and with such the terraces were covered, as well as with plants and flowers of every delicacy, beauty, and fragrance. In the upper terrace there was an engine or pump by which water was drawn up out of the river, and thence the whole garden was watered. In the spaces between the several arches on which the structure rested, were large and magnificent apartments for pleasure and recreation. The Temple of Belus, the great work of Nebuchadnezzar, has been already described. The other works ascribed to that prince by ancient writers were the embankments of the river, the artificial canals, and the completion of the artificial lake begun by Semiramis; but Herodotus says that some of these were the work of the queen who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar, called Nitocris, who probably finished what he had begun. The lake was on the west side of the city, and was forty miles square, one hundred and sixty in compass, and from thirty-five to seventy-five feet deep. The embankments were constructed of bricks and bitumen, and extended on both sides of the river, to keep it within its channel, nearly twenty miles. Opposite to each street, on both sides of the river, was a gate of brass leading from it to the river, which was open during the day and shut at night. The canals were cut on the east side of the Euphrates, to convey the water of the river, when it overflowed its banks, to the Tigris, before it reached Babylon. pletely as if the "besom of destruction" had swept it from north to south, and all that the eye can perceive is now a melancholy waste. We have repeatedly observed that Babylon was in its greatest glory and splendour during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who built or extended the eastern and probably the most magnificent quarter of the city, which may be emphatically styled the city of the Chaldeans. The city and the whole country of Babylon formed part of the Assyrian Empire until the reign of Sarac or Saracus, the last Assyrian king, who fell amid the ruins of Nineveh, his plundered capital. The government of Babylon, and the command of the Assyrian forces in Chaldea, had been given by Sarac to Nabopolassar, who appears from his name, which, according to Foster, is equivalent to Nebu-polezitzar, or our lord dwells in heaven, to have been an Assyrian, and probably a descendant of Nabonassar, a king of Babylon after that division of the Assyrian monarchy which was ultimately recovered by the Assyrian kings. Nabopolassar, after the destruction of Nineveh in conjunction with the king of Medea, whose daughter or sister Amytis was married to his son Nebuchadnezzar, refounded the kingdom of Babylon, and made that royal city the capital of his dominions. Previous to this, and even during the time of Hezekiah, Babylon was tributary to the Assyrian Empire. Merodach baladan, the son of Baladan, king or viceroy of Babylon, sent letters and a present to King Hezekiah, of whose sickness and recovery he had heard, and whom he probably wished to engage in a league against his Assyrian superior. Hezekiah on that occasion made a vain and imprudent dis Such was Babylon as described by ancient historians, of which a mere outline is here attempted. An idea may be formed of its greatness in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, when it was the imperial city, from the fact that when its territory was reduced to the rank of a province, it yielded a revenue to the Persian kings which comprised half their income. Besides supplying horses for military service, it maintained about seventeen thousand horses for the sovereign's use. The terms, we have already seen, in which the Scriptures describe its natural as well as acquired supremacy sufficiently prove its magnificence. Although it is not improbable, as the Baron Goguet well remarks, that the accounts of the ancient historians are greatly exaggerated, it nevertheless might well be styled "the Glory of Kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency—the Lady of Kingdoms, given to pleasure, that dwellest carelessly, and sayest in her heart, I am, and there is none else beside me." From the character and arrangement of its buildings, and, above all, from the tenor of prophecy, it was prevented from leaving monuments to posterity worthy of comparison with those of Persepolis or Balbec, but its heaps or rather mountains of rubbish still interest the philosopher and the historian, as the most ancient of ancient ruins, the very traditions of the origin of which lead back to the most remote anti-play of his treasures, for which he received quity, and to the very dawn of historical records. At the present time we may say, in the same expressive language of Scrip ture, "She sits as a widow on the lonely ground: there is no more a throne for thee, daughter of the Chaldeans!" The abundance of the country and the fertility of the soil have disappeared as com a severe reproof from the Prophet Isaiah, who announced to him the future disasters of his kingdom and his family-that the days were advancing when "all that was in his house, and which his fathers had laid up in store, would be carried to Babylon, and nothing would be left;" and that his "sons would be eunuchs in the palace of the kings of Babylon," in other words, that they would wait upon the king of Babylon as his servants, which was partly fulfilled in the case of Daniel and his companions. On that occasion the ambassadors of the king of Babylon are described as coming "from a far country, even from Babylon," which shows that the Jews had little intercourse with Babylonia, and that it was a country almost unknown to them during the reign of Hezekiah. Ezar-haddon, the successor of Sennacherib, reconquered Babylon, which had revolted from the Assyrian domination about the end of the reign of the latter prince. The era of Nabopolassar, who is also called Nebuchadnezzar in the Scriptures, is fixed at the commencement of the sixth century of the Christian era, when Nineveh was destroyed, and the independence of Babylon as a kingdom completely established. Josephus, citing the Chaldean historian Berosus, gives us some brief notices of Nabopolassar, and says that he sent his son Nebuchadnezzar against Egypt and Judea with a great army, conquering Egypt, Syria, Phoenicia, and part of the frontiers of Arabia. "When Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar," says the Jewish historian, quoting from the Chaldean writer, "heard that the governor, whom he had set over Egypt, and over the parts of Cœlo-Syria and Phonicia, had revolted from him, he was not able to bear it any longer; but commit ting certain parts of his army to his son Nebuchadnezzar, who was then young, he sent him against the rebels. Nebuchadnezzar joined battle with him, conquered him, and reduced the country under his father's dominion again. Now, it so happened that his father Nabopolassar fell into a distemper at this time, and died in the city of Babylon, after he had reigned twenty-nine years. But as he understood in a little time that his father Nabopolassar was dead, he set the affairs of Egypt and the other countries in order, and committed the captives he had taken from the Jews, and Phoenicians, and Syrians, and of the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends, that they might conduct that part of the forces that had on heavy armour with the rest of his baggage to Babylon, while he went in haste, having but a few with him, over the desert to Babylon, whither, when he was come, he found the public affairs had been managed by the Chaldeans, and that the principal person among them had preserved the kingdom for him." The his torian, after thus narrating the peaceable accession of Nebuchadnezzar, proceeds to describe the magnificent works, familiar to the reader, with which he adorned Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar the Great, or Nabocolassar, whose history occurs in the sacred writings, began his reign in the beginning of the sixth century of the Christian era, and Babylon by his exertions became the magnificent city already described. The period of the reign of this prince is variously stated, Josephus assigning him forty-three years; Scaliger, Hales, and Sir Walter Raleigh, fortyfour; Prideaux and Lightfoot, forty-five; and the Canon of Ptolemy, only twentythree. It is extremely difficult to ascertain the succession of the kings of Babylon between the death of Nebuchadnezzar and the subjugation of the Babylonian Empire by Cyrus. The Scriptures, which are silent as to the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, only mention two of his successors, Evil-Merodach, his son, who is alleged by some historians to have been the husband of Nitocris, and Belshazzar, the last king of Babylon, who was unquestionably the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. An idea may be formed of the difficulty which attends this investigation by comparing the different computations of some commentators. Josephus thus enumerates the successors of Nebuchadnezzar, and the number of years which they reigned:-Evil-Merodach, eighteen years; Neriglissar, forty-six; Laborosoarchod, nine months; Belshazzar, seventeen years; yet in his treatise against Apion, the Jewish historian assigns only two years to Evil-Merodach, and four to Neriglissar; while in the Canon of Ptolemy, Ilvarodam, or Evil-Merodach, is assigned a reign of three years; Neucolassar, Neriglissar, or Belshazzar, five years; Nabonadius, seventeen years, after whom succeeded Cyrus the Great. According to Scaliger's hypothesis, Evil-Merodach reigned two years; Balhasar, or Belshazzar, five years; and Nabonadius, or Darius the Mede, seventeen years; while Dr Hales thus computes the succession after Nebuchadnezzar:-Evil-Merodach, three years; Belshazzar, five; Darius the Mede, two; and Cyrus, 22. Dr Prideaux, again, assigns Evil-Merodach one year; Neriglissar, three; Laborosoarchod, nine months; Nabonadius, or Belshazzar, seventeen years, after whom he places Darius and Cyrus, which forms a singular contrast to the computation of Sir Walter Raleigh, who alleges that EvilMerodach, Neriglissar, and queen Nitocris, reigned during Nebuchadnezzar's lifetime, referring probably to the period of that prince's insanity, and that Evil-Merodach reigned altogether twenty-six years; Balshasar, or Belshazzar, seventeen, after whom he places Darius and Cyrus. Rollin, on the other hand, thus classes the succession of the kings of Babylon, beginning with Nabopolassar. In the year B.C.607, he makes Nabopolassar associate his son Nebuchadnezzar with him in the empire, who sends the latter at the head of an army to re-conquer the countries taken from him by Pharaoh-Necho, king of Egypt. In the year B.C. 606, Jerusalem submitted to Nebuchadnezzar, who transported great numbers of Jews to Babylon, amongst whom was the Prophet Daniel; and Rollin dates the beginning of the Captivity from this carrying away of the Jews to Babylon. In the year of the world 3399, B.C. 605, Nebuchadnezzar succeeded his father in his extensive dominions. At this period the king of Babylon's lieutenants still ravaged Judea, and blockaded Jerusalem. In the year B.C. 599, the year of the birth of Cyrus, Nebuchadnezzar repaired in person to Jerusalem, made himself master of the city, deposed Jehoiachin the king, whom he carried into captivity, and elevated Mattaniah, Jehoiachin's uncle, to the throne of Judah, and changed his name to Zedekiah, 2 Kings xxiv. Six years after this, Zedekiah rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar, who, B.C. 588, destroyed Jerusalem, and carried the Jewish king to Babylon as prisoner, having barbarously put out his eyes at Riblah, after massacring his sons before his face; and it was after his return from this expedition that he caused the three young Hebrews to be thrown into the fiery furnace. In the year B. C. 572, Nebuchadnezzar made himself master of Tyre, after a siege of thirteen years, and he immediately marched against Egypt. Some years afterwards he was afflicted with a remarkable insanity, announced by the Prophet Daniel in his interpretation of the king's second dream, and this mental derangement continued seven years. Subsequently on his recovery, he reigned one year, and was succeeded by his son, Evil-Merodach. That prince, according to the chronological arrangement of Rollin, which we are still following, reigned only two years, and was succeeded, B.C. 562, by Neriglissar, who made preparations for war against the Medes, and called his contemporary Croesus, king of Lydia, to his aid. Cyaxares and Cyrus defeated the Babylonian and Lydean monarchs in a battle, B.C. 556, in which the former was slain. Laborosoarchod succeeded, who reigned only nine months, when Belshazzar, whom Rollin, after Herodotus, calls Labynitus, ascended the throne. In the year B. C. 538, Cyrus made himself master of Babylon, at the taking of which Labynitus or Belshazzar was slain, and thus ended the Babylonian Empire, which was united to that of the Medes. From the preceding details, the extreme confusion which prevails among the historians of that period and their subsequent commentators is at once apparent. The causes of these contradictory accounts may be in some degree ascertained from the hints which the ancient writers give us of the state of the kingdom of Babylon after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, or perhaps during the period of his mental de rangement. Evil-Merodach, or foolish Merodach, his son and successor, was, as his name implies, a weak prince, and taking advantage of his imbecility, several of the princes mentioned by the authorities just cited may have opposed him, and exercised the regal power, while he was merely the nominal sovereign; and it is not unlikely that to those usurpers may be ascribed the various accounts transmitted to us of the Babylonish succession during that period. In the Cyropædia of Xenophon, an injured nobleman repeatedly praises the father of that king of Babylon against whom Cyrus was marching, whom the latter calls an Assyrian; and from the description given by Isaiah (xix. 29), of the three kings of Babylon, it is not improbable that Belshazzar was the king who committed the cruelties complained of by the friends of Cyrus, and recorded by Xenophon. The Prophet describes Nebuchadnezzar as a "serpent," Evil-Merodach as a "cockatrice," and Belshazzar as a 66 fiery flying serpent," excelling his predecessors in cruelty. In the short account of EvilMerodach in the Scriptures, we are only informed that he released Jehoiachin from prison, and that "he (Jehoiachin) ate bread continually before him all the days of his life," 2 Kings xxv. 29, 30, from which last expression we are entitled to infer that Jehoiachin lived many years after his restoration to liberty, and that during his lifetime Evil-Merodach was still king. The Scriptures, we have previously said, mention only two kings of Babylon after Nebuchadnezzar, Evil - Merodach and Belshazzar, without giving the duration of their reigns. This arrangement is followed by Lightfoot, who assigns to Nebuchadnezzar the Great a reign of fortyfive years, to Evil-Merodach his son twenty-three years, and to Belshazzar three years. This hypothesis, besides being conformable to Scripture, is the most probable and consistent, if we observe three facts which seem to be implied in the Book of Daniel. First, Belshazzar, the last king of Babylon, was undoubtedly of the family of Nebuchadnezzar, for he is repeatedly called his son, and Nebuchadnezzar is said to be his father, namely, his grandfather. The Prophet Daniel, when summoned before him to explain the mysterious handwriting on the wall at the memorable banquet, while he refuses the gifts and dignities which the king promised him, and professes his willingness to make known the interpretation, thus addresses him, “O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar, thy father, a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour: and for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up, and whom he would he put down," Dan. v. 18, 19. Here we have not only Belshazzar's descent clearly stated, but a direct allusion to the greatness and grandeur of the Babylonian Empire under Nebuchadnezzar. In 2. Chron. xxxvi. 20, the "king of the Chaldees," or Nebuchadnezzar, is recorded as punishing Zedekiah for his rebellion, and carrying off the Jews as captives to Babylon, where they were" servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia." Jeremiah prophesies in the same distinct and emphatic manner:-" Thus saith the Lord, I have given all these lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, my servant, and the beasts of the fields have I given him also to serve him. And all nations shall serve him, and his son's son"-namely, Belshazzar, who by a common Hebraism, 1 Kings xv. 3, compared with verse 11, and 2 Kings viii. 16, compared with verse 18, is styled the son of Nebuchadnezzar, although he was his grandson-" until the time of his land come, and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him," or until the time had expired which God had fixed for the period of the Babylonian monarchy, and then many nations and great kings were to come, and divide it amongst them as a common prey. Secondly, Belshazzar, according to Lightfoot, whose hypothesis harmonizes with the narrative of the |