of noon) would be to cause the shadow to recede on a dial, or steps, similar to that of Ahaz. We need not wonder, if some devout and sincere believers in Holy Writ should have been so deeply impressed with this striking fact, as to assume as exceedingly probable, that it was on the 11th January 689 B.C. that the promise of recovery was given to Hezekiah, and the shadow went back ten degrees upon the dial of Ahaz. It is taken for granted, by the favourers of this theory, that Demetrius, a Jewish historian quoted by Clement of Alexandria, assigns, and correctly assigns, the year 578 B.c. as the date of the commencement of Nebuchadnezzar's sole reign at Babylon. It is also next assumed that the Chaldean annals give, and correctly give, an interval of eighty-eight years between the death of Sennacherib and the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's undivided sovereignty, and the inference is drawn that the former died cir. 668-7 B.C.

But it will be found, on examination, that such views are inconsistent with the facts of Scripture and secular history. It may be considered as certain, from the Scriptures (Dan. ix. 2), that there was an interval of seventy years between the commencement of the Chaldean desolations under Nebuchadnezzar, and the first year of the reign of Cyrus over Babylon. Now, as the Scriptures make mention of the third year of Coresh, or Cyrus (Dan. x. 1)—and again, when speaking of a system of bribery, which doubtless did not commence* earlier than the beginning of the third year of Coresh, they say, "The adversaries hired counsellors against the Jews all the days of Coresh, king of Persia"-we may reasonably conclude that Coresh did not reign less than five years over Babylon. Thus, not less than seventy-five years intervened between the commencement of the Chaldean desolations under Nebuchadnezzar and the death of Coresh. Hence Nebuchadnezzar's first conquest of Jerusalem, when Daniel was carried away captive, cannot be dated later than 605-4 B.C.; for this is the date which we obtain by adding 75 to 530-29. And even if we suppose that he was then joint-sovereign with his father

* When Coresh issued his famous decree for the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem, the scattered Jews had to be collected from various parts of his empire; and this would take some time to accomplish. The journey of so large a body of men, women, and children would be comparatively slow. The commencement of the work of laying the foundation of the temple, the opposition of their neighbours, the sending of emissaries to the Persian court, would be more than the work of a few days or weeks. And, upon the whole, we may safely conclude, that it was not until after the beginning of the third year of Coresh, that the Jews were compelled to desist from the prosecution of their sacred task.

Nabopolassar, and that his own undivided sovereignty did not commence until 603–2 B.C., two years afterwards, what will be the result, if we suppose, with the favourers of the abovementioned theory, that the Chaldean annals are correct in assigning an interval of eighty-eight years between the death of Sennacherib and the beginning of the sole and undivided reign of Nebuchadnezzar? It will follow, if we add 88 to 603-2, that Sennacherib died not later than 691-0 B.C., which is fatal to the supposition that the dangerous sickness of Hezekiah, and the recession of the shadow ten degrees on the dial of Ahaz, mentioned in Holy Writ, occurred in 689 B.C.

If we pursue the inquiry, the result will be still more unfavourable to the theory in question. The Canon of Ptolemy, which takes no notice of the Median Darius, states that Cyrus (or Coresh) reigned about eight years at Babylon. The Seriptures only speak of the first year of Darius the Mede, and do not make it necessary to suppose that he reigned more than one year; and such a supposition better accords with the entire silence of the Canon concerning him. Let it be allowed, however, that he reigned two years; it will result that Coresh reigned over the Chaldeans six years, which would give to the commencement of Nebuchadnezzar's sole sovereignty a date not later than 604-3 B.C. Thus, according to the supposed Chaldean interval of eighty-eight years, 692-1 B.C. would be the latest date of the death of Sennacherib.

Again, an eclipse, which was recorded at Babylon in the fifth year of Nabopolassar (the father of Nebuchadnezzar), has been proved by modern astronomy to have happened in 1621 B.C. This king reigned twenty-one years. Hence the reign of Nabopolassar ceased, and the sole and undivided sovereignty of Nebuchadnezzar commenced, not later than 604 B.c. If, then, it were true that, according to the Chaldean annals, eighty-eight years intervened between the death of Sennacherib and the termination of the reign of Nabopolassar, we could not assign a later date than 692 B.c. for the death of Sennacherib.

It thus appears certain, that the recession of the shadow ten degrees on the dial of Ahaz, the divinely vouchsafed sign to assure Hezekiah that he should speedily recover from his dangerous malady, did not occur in 689 B.C. And surely the majority of the students of scriptural history will be of opinion, that the recession of the shadow on the dial, on the third day before Hezekiah's going up into the house of the Lord, was not due to any natural phenomenon, as often as they read the sublime and simple Scripture narrative—“ And Hezekiah said

unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign that the Lord will heal me, and that I shall go up into the house of the Lord the third day? And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the Lord, that the Lord will do the thing that he hath spoken: SHALL THE SHADOW GO FORWARD ten degrees, or GO BACK ten degrees? And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees. And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord; and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz" (2 Kings xx. 8-11.)

ART. III. THE SERAPHIM AND THE THRONE.

ISAIAH VI.

THOSE who have sailed down the Red Sea tell us that there is one part of the Arabian coast where you may catch a view of the peaks of the Sinai range. If, however, you are to enjoy this sight, you must be on the watch when you approach that part of the coast which opens inward toward these mountains-for many lose the view by being off their guard, occupied with other thoughts, or sleeping in their cabins, at the moment the vessel is passing the opening through which others see these renowned tops. And then you must take care that your vessel does not sail too close to the shore-for in that case, also, you miss the sight. You must sail at some distance from the coast; the lea-shore is not the proper point of view. If unwatchful, or if not occupying the right point of observation, you pass by what others have gazed on with solemn delight. Is it not even thus with students of the prophetic Word, and some of their fellow-Christians? Sailing along the same coast, to the same country, some of our brethren miss the sights of distant glory, which we see, however dimly. Either they are not watching for what meets our eye, or they are not at the right point of view; and so they discern not the kingdom and the throne-the coming glory and the coming King.

We might apply our illustration to students of prophecy themselves. Why is it that one sees more than another in the same landscape of the future kingdom? Why do details in the outline of the future catch the eye of some more than others? It may be accounted for not always by the difference

in watchfulness, but as much by the point of view occupied by the inquirer. And in investigating the subject of the Seraphim and the Throne in Isaiah, this remark is specially applicable. All depends on where we stand (so to speak) when gazing on the vision.

1. THE THRONE.-" In the year that king Uzziah died, I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, and his train filled the temple.”—(Ver. 1.)

eye

Now, everywhere else when the throne is described, it appears as above the head of the earthly beholder. It appears as a glorious seat in the sky above, up to which the is turned. Thus it is in Exodus xxiv. 10, the first time it was seen by man :- They saw the God of Israel, and under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, and the body of heaven in its clearness." Thus it is in Ezekiel i. 26:— "Above the firmament was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of sapphire stone"-and on that throne "the likeness of a man; " and it is called, at verse 28, "the likeness of the glory of the Lord." Nor can it be supposed to be otherwise in our passage. The prophet says the throne was "high and lifted up," signifying its position in the firmament above his head.

He seems to have been worshipping in the court of the temple, pondering the death of Uzziah, and perhaps praying for his successor, when, like John in Patmos, or Stephen in the council-hall, his eye was opened to see things in heaven. He saw, stretched over the temple, a throne that surpassed in magnificence all that Solomon had been able to display in palace or sanctuary. It was so placed that the temple lay beneath it, as when the glorious pillar-cloud spread out its folds over the tabernacle and its courts. The temple, with its worshippers, was thus exactly in the position of Moses and the seventy elders on the hill in Exodus xxiv. 10. Isaiah was thus exactly in the position of Ezekiel (Ezek. i 28.*)

That robe of glory which the King was arrayed in was a robe of light. It is this that is meant by " His train." The term is used for the flowing train of a robe, or its

* The Jewish commentator Jaschi has these words:"Sitting on His throne in the heavens, and His feet on the temple as His footstool, on the house of the sanctuary." He adds-"To judge concerning Uzziah, who came to take away the crown of the priesthood." We shall see presently that the vision may be said to shew the Lord coming to reign over the earth; and to judge Antichrist, the usurper of priesthood, like Uzziah, is of course one of

his acts.

skirt.* In Exodus xxviii. 33, 34, it is the word for the hem of the priest's long robe; the hem, or border, or skirt, on which the row of bells and pomegranates was hung. Is it thus here? Is this our Melchisedec-priest's garment that reaches down to the feet? His robe is the light, as Ps. civ. 4. It fills the temple. It does what the glory did when that same temple was dedicated by Solomon, so filling it that none could stand there; and forthwith Isaiah felt that (2 Chron. v. 13, 14), like the priests in those days, he could not abide the searching gaze of that brightness, and the overwhelming majesty it betokened.

2. THE SERAPHIM." Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly."—(Ver. 2.)

We are led to inquire, first of all, here, what is "above it"? The Hebrew is i byen, a phrase that has been variously interpreted. Many understand by "it," the throne; others render it "him," the Hebrew admitting of either, so far as the construction is concerned. To understand the temple by the pronoun "it," would be as simple an interpretation as any; and if we retain " above," as the sense of the preposition, we are shut up to that sense, inasmuch the seraphim could not stand above the King, nor yet above the throne, although some writers (e. g., Horsley and Alexander) seem to adopt that view. Either the words mean "above the temple," just where the rest of her glorious robe spread itself out as a canopy to the sanctuary, or they are to be rendered upon" the throne-in which sense the phrase is used, Gen. xxii. 9, when Isaac is laid upon the wood, and in Daniel xii. 6, when the man is spoken of as 66 upon the waters of the river." This is, in substance, the sense adopted by the Septuagint, who read κUKλ avтoû, remarkably corresponding to Rev. iv. 6. It is also the sense approved of by Grotius, Gesenius, Ewald, Henderson, who agree in understanding it "near by;" while Malvenda (apud Poole) definitely states the position" on the base of the pavement of the throne; others, "on the steps of the throne."

66

or,

as

But what are we to understand by the seraphim? It is to be noticed that there is no article prefixed to their name in the original, a circumstance that at once suggests that this

* Calvin says, the edging of the cloth that covered the throne is the idea; Witsius, the fringes of the robe. Placeus refers to Exodus xxviii. 33.