confirmed by several passages of Scripture. The holy vessels of the temple at Jerusalem, which were placed by Nebuchadnezzar in the temple at Babylon* and therefore desecrated to Bel (for the Babylonian temple was the temple of Bel†), were upon this occasion brought out by Belshazzar, and polluted to the purposes of idolatrous festivity. Since therefore those vessels now formed a part of the furniture of Bel's temple, the probability is, that they were brought out specially in his honour.

for them to revel the whole of that night. He could not have heard, that they had been revelling the whole of the night on which he took the city, because he took it before the night was half over: but he heard, that it was usual for them to spend it in revelling. Hence he concluded, that they would do so again; he concluded, that he might positively depend upon their doing so: and he planned his measures accordingly. The festival therefore was not an accidental one, but a fixed or periodical one. This being the case, when we consider the manner in which the theological festivals of paganism were celebrated, the probability is, that it was of a religious nature: and, if it were at once periodical and theological, the probability further is, that it was the great annual festival in honour of Bel, mentioned by Herodotus. Add to this, what I have already mentioned, that Daniel expressly informs us, that part of the festival was theological, consisting of offering up praises to the gods; and these probabilities seem to amount to little less than certainty,

2 Chron. xxxvi. 7. Ezra v. 14.

See Herod. Hist. lib. i. § 181, 182, 183.

The

The same circumstance appears to be insinuated by Isaiah. Foretelling the downfall of Babylon, and alluding to the manner in which the idol gods were wont to be drawn by oxen in portable shrines he exclaims, "Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth; "their idols are laid on the beasts and the cattle: "their burdens are heavy, a grievous weight to the

* See my Dissert. on the mysteries of the Cabiri. Vol. i. p. 35, 43, 218, 219. See also Davies's Mythology of the British Druids. p. 139, 141, 142, 171, 179. I cannot help observing, that this curious work of Mr. Davies decidedly corroborates my opinion respecting the nature and universality of the helio-arkite mysteries of the Cabiri. The scattered notices, which I was able to collect, led me to conclude that they prevailed among our Celtic ancestors, and that the history of Merlin-and the original Arthur-was mythological. This now appears very evidently to have been the case, The theology of the Druids, like that (I believe) of all the ancient nations, was composed of traditions relative to the deluge, mixed with astronomical Sabianism. They worshipped Noah in conjunction with the sun, and the ark in conjunction with the moon. Bel, Hu, and Arthur, were equally the helio-arkite patriarch. The history of Arthur is immediately connected with that of the Argonauts. He is the Arcturus of the sphere. The bard Taliesin, in his poem intitled Spoils of the Deep, which treats wholly of diluvian mythology, represents him as presiding in the ship, which brought himself and seven friends safe to land, when the deep swallowed up the rest of the human race. He speaks of course of the ancient Arthur, many particulars of whose history have been confounded with that of the prince of that name.

“weary

cr

weary beast. They crouched, they bowed down << together: they could not deliver their own charge; even they themselves are gone into captivity

The language of Jeremiah is exactly similar. "De"clare ye among the nations, and publish, and set << up a standard; publish, and conceal not: say, "Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, Merodach "is broken in pieces; her idols are confounded, "her images are broken in pieces-A 'drought is "upon her waters, and they shall be dried up: for "it is the land of graven images, and they are mad

upon their idols And I will punish Bel in Baby"lon, and I will bring forth out of his mouth that "which he hath swallowed up: and the nations "shall not flow together any more unto him: yea, "the wall of Babylon shall fall-I will do judgment

upon the graven images of Babylon, and her "whole land shall be confounded—I will do judg"ment upon her graven images, and through all "her land the wounded shall groan t." The selection of this particular time to pour out vengeance upon Babylon perfectly accords with the general course of God's penal dispensations throughout the Old Testament. They are usually so ordered as to exhibit most conspicuously the triumphs of Jehovah over the false deities of the Gentiles. Such

Isaiah xlvi. 1, 2.

Jerem. 1. 2, 38. li. 44, 47, 52, was

was the nature of all the plagues of Egypt*: such was the nature of the last exploit of Sampson: such was the nature of the punishment inflicted on Dagon before the ark: such was the nature of Elijah's contest with the priests of Baal: and such was the nature of the overthrow of the Syrians under Benhadad, in the days of Ahabt. There was therefore a peculiar propriety in the Almighty's so ordering it, that Babylon should be taken on the very festival of Bel: and, with this view of the subject, we shall perceive a remarkable force in the preceding denunciations of Isaiah and Jeremiah.

If then Babylon was taken on a festival of Bel, we must enquire at what time of the year the festival in question was celebrated. Herodotus mentions only one anniversary festival of this deity, probably on account of the superior solemnity of that one; but there appear to have been several of them. The celebration of these was fixed to the vernal equinox, May-day, the summer solstice, the first of August, and the eve of the first of November t Now we may determine in general, that Babylon must have been taken some time between the latter

* See this matter shewn at large in Bryant's Treatise on the Plagues of Egypt.

† Judges xvi. 23-31—1 Sam. v. 1-7. vi. 5—1 Kings xviii. 18-40-1 Kings xx. 23-29.

Collect. de rebus Hibernicis. Vol. iii. p. 286.

end

end of December in the year A. C. 539, and the beginning of May in the year A. C. 538. This will appear from the following considerations. It could not have been taken earlier than December: because (as we collect from the canon of Ptolemy) it was taken 67 years and a fraction after the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and Jerusalem was taken on the 18th of November in the year A. C. 606. Neither could it have been taken later than the May following: because two years after its capture Cyrus became sole king by the death of Darius the Mede, and in the September of the first year of his sole reign the Jews were in Jerusalem celebrating the feast of tabernacles*: but, if the decree of Cyrus for the restoration of the Jews, which was enacted in the first year of his sole reign, had been enacted later than the beginning of May, the Jews could not possibly have been in Jerusalem the September following, for we cannot allow a shorter space than four months for their journey from Babylon into their own country: hence it will follow, since Babylon was taken about two years before the commencement of the scriptural first year of Cyrus, and since this first year could not have commenced later than the beginning of May,

606 67 53'9

Ezra iii. 1.

that