feared would be the case. Now, as regards the Chaldean conquest of Egypt, is it quite fair to say that it contradicts all established history? Who is it that alone counts here as a witness? A single historian, Herodotus, who, it is true, knows nothing of a Chaldean occupation, but states only that the restless Hophra, after the last unlucky turn in his naval war with the Phoenicians, turned his arms against Cyrene in the Westthat, unfortunate in this war also, he was dethroned by his own general, Amasis, and was strangled by his own enraged subjects (Herod. II. 161). But is Herodotus a witness of such character that the testimony of the contemporary Ezekiel must be set on one side in deference to him? Yet it is admitted that his Egyptian history is derived from the traditions of the priests, and he himself owns-and that precisely in reference to the history of Amasis that their history had been embellished (oeprovv) by the Egyptians in the interest of the honour of their king (Herod. III. 16). Now, seeing that Herodotus got from his sacerdotal authorities an account of the battle of Mejiddo, which was favourable to Necho, but on the other hand learnt nothing from them as to the far more important defeat of Necho by the Chaldeans on the Euphrates, ought it to excite surprise if the priests held their peace also as to the Chaldean invasion of their own country? Or even if they preferred to represent the ignominious end to which Hophra was brought by the foreign conqueror as the work of their own nation? Is it not in the opposite national interest that the Chaldean historian Berosus styles the King of Egypt "the Satrap of Egypt and Syria who revolted from Babylon?" And are not the victories of Nebuchadnezzar over Phoenicia, which followed the battle of Karchemisch, passed over in like manner by the Phoenician historians? Meanwhile we are not quite wanting in information as to the occupation of Egypt. We find mention of such an occupation in a passage of Josephus, who, as is well known, had before him, if not the original work of Berosus, yet at any rate copious extracts from it. Josephus relates in a passage (Antiq. X. ix. 7) which even Ewald (Geschicte Israels III. 751) declares to be unobnoxious to critical scruples as to its credibility, that the predictions of Ezekiel were accomplished, inasmuch as Nebuchadnezzar, in the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem and in the 23rd year of his reign, undertook in the first instance a campaign against Colesyria, the Ammonites and the Moabites, and then penetrated and laid waste * This is the view taken by Mr. Rawlinson in his learned work on Herodotus (London : 1858). Ewald Geschithte Israels, III. 727. Niebuhr Assyrien, s. 366. Egypt, slew its king, set up another in his place, and carried away the Jews settled there to Babylon. It is not easy to see what there is which could shake the credibility of this account. That Coelesyria was really overrun with war by Nebuchadnezzar, the oracles of Jeremiah respecting Hernath, Arpad, and Damascus shew (Jer. xlix.). Ammon and Moab were amongst those nations which wanted to draw Zedekiah into the alliance against Nebuchadnezzar, and Ezek. xxi. shows that the king was hesitating against which of the two nations, Ammon or Judah, he should first pour out his wrath. Moreover, some months after the taking of Jerusalem, the Ammonites had caused Gedaliah to be slain, together with his Chaldean body-guard. The duration of this campaign must have been about ten years, since it begins B.C. 581, and shortly after the overthrow of Tyre, about B.C. 572, Nebuchadnezzar marched against Egypt. This is not too great a space of time, especially if the subjugation of the Arab tribes bordering on Moab, which Jeremiah mentions (c. xxv. xlix., 28-32), falls within the same period, and if this detachment of the Chaldean army marched through Idumea, in order to rest for support on the besieging army on the sea-coast. Moreover, besides Josephus there is still a fragment of Megasthenes, a contemporary of Berosus, to be brought forward, in which it is said of Nebuchadnezzar, that he advanced into Libya as far as the pillars of Hercules. It has lately been rendered probable, that the nucleus of truth in this statement is, that with the fall of Tyre the Tyrian colonies also in Spain acknowledged the supremacy of the Chaldeans. Now since Libya was then pretty much another name for Egypt, the conquest of Egypt might be here referred to. But what especially serves as a support to the account of Josephus, is the remarkable circumstance, that the death of Hophra, according to a date which is secured in several ways,† falls in the year B.C. 570, and accordingly precisely about the time in which the occupation of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar took place. * It is from this event that we are to date the forty years of Egypt's humiliation, after which, as Jeremiah also intimates (xlvi. 26) she was to arise again, and to become as of old, nevertheless, henceforward only as "a base kingdom." It may be observed in passing, that if in connection with this, a dispersion of the Egyptians amongst all nations, and subsequent gathering of them from amongst all nations is intimated, this is not to be regarded as anything special, but simply as a description of the deportation Movers II .i. 440. † "The reign of Apries (Hophra) belongs to the years B.C. 588 or 589 to B.C. 570, according to the calculation of averages so firmly assured on all sides, that not more than a very few dates in ancient history can be regarded as equally certain."-MOVERS II. i. 457. of the better born and younger portion of the inhabitants, such as was then implied in every hostile occupation, and such as was threatened in Nahum iii. 10 against the Egyptian Thebes as the consequence of the Assyrian conquest. This forty years of tribulation is explained from the Egyptian history, if with Niebuhr (p. 90), we may assume that it embraces the whole period between the battle of Karchemish, with which begins the reduction of the empire of the Pharaohs, to the overthrow of Hophra. This is a space of thirty-six years, during which Egypt was depopulated through the continual, and for the most part unfortunate warlike enterprises of Hophra, and must have been extremely weakened, until at last the Chaldean invasion gave the finishing stroke to the calamity. That Hophra was hated by his subjects Heredotus tells us, and his statement is confirmed by a monument in Rosellini, on which he is styled "the Hated One.*" It is quite true indeed that according to the superscription, the above-cited oracle of Ezekiel falls in the year B.C. 588, and therefore about seventeen years after the battle of Karchemish. But could not the prophet speak just as he does speak even if his threat" Behold I will cause the sword to come upon thee, and to destroy both thy people and thy cattle," had already begun indeed to be fulfilled, but was now about to receive its complete accomplishment? Just as the prophets include the future in the inchoate fulfilment (Jer. xiii. 18, Ezek. xxx. 24), so in the last and complete accomplishment the earlier and imperfect fulfilments also are comprehended. Again, if after that space of forty years of calamity and humiliation a "turning again of their captivity," i.e. according to the proverbial use of this phrase a turning-point in their destiny, is promised, with the addition, that nevertheless Egypt shall from this time forward be "a base kingdom," we subjoin the words of Lepsius as a commentary: "The number of towns rose under Amasis to 20,000; art also received a new impulse, and particular private individuals caused to be erected, as towns for themselves, great and sumptuous rock-places. But the warlike prowess of the nation did not increase in like proportion. With the end of this dynasty the country succumbed to the first onslaught of the Persian powers. From B.C. 525-504 Egypt remained a Persian province."* The conquest of Egypt, the aim which the Chaldean ruler had long in view, he could not attain until Tyre, the allied advanced post of that country, had fallen. But Jeremiah had predicted its subjugation with that of the other nations who had joined the alliance against Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. xxv. 22, xxvii. 3, xlvii. See Winer's Kealworterbuch. s. v. Hophra. * Herzog's Kealencyclopædie i. 150.J 4). In an elaborate and highly poetical description, the destruction of the Tyrian power by the Chaldeans is foretold by Ezekiel, cs. xxvi.-xxviii. If we read xxvi. 4-21 it is clear that a conquest and total destruction is here announced. The towers and walls of the city are to be destroyed, and to be made level with the sun-scorched rock, a place for drying nets in the midst of the sea. The enemy is to advance its reaching engines to the walls, and to enter within the gates, as other conquered cities are entered, alluding to the throwing up of a mound of earth from the continental shore to the island city, 1200 paces off. C. xxix. 18, we read in the oracle, pronounced on the first day of the first month of the twenty-seventh year of the prophet's captivity-therefore fifteen years later than chap. xxvi.-"Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus; every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled; yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it: Therefore thus saith the Lord God, behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army." Are we to see in this language the concession of the prophet, that since the siege had been unsuccessful his prediction had come to nought? This is how Gesenius interprets it in is commentary on Isaiah xxiii., and Hitzig on Ezek. xxix. On the other hand, from the times of Jerome, the oracle has been taken in this sense, that the army had received no adequate reward for the labour expended on the great mound (it is to this that the heads became bald and the shoulders peeled, through the bearing of heavy burdens alluded to), because the Tyrians, just as they are known to have done in other instances in similar emergencies, shipped their treasures off to their colonial cities. It is thus that the passage is explained by Hengstenberg, Hovernick, and Ewald amongst the moderns. Even Hitzig too allows that the one sense is as admissible as the other. But what ought not to have been called in question after the exhaustive discussions of Hengstenberg and Havernick is this fact, which is now, after the investigations of Movers (II. i. 461 f.), pretty universally acknowledged, that, at any rate, if not a complete conquest, yet a capitulation of the Tyrians must have taken place, in pursuance of which they again became vassals of the Chaldeans, and must have submitted to the deportation of their royal family to Babylon. The most significant proof of this is found in the fact that about a year afterwards they are attacked and subjected as Chaldean vassals by their former ally Hophra. That this subjugation to the Egyptian king could now be brought about by a coup de main, shows what must have been the state of their fortifications and their power at that time. Let us picture to ourselves what such a shameful capitulation pre-supposes, and we shall see that it cannot have differed in any essential respect from a conquest in the strictest sense. No armed garrison submits to a capitulation so long as the walls stand inviolate-least of all after a brave defence during thirteen years. The mound thrown up by the enemy must accordingly have advanced right up to the wall of the city, and his breaching engines must have pierced them. The hostile army must have entered the city in triumph, on which occasion, especially after such severe trials protracted through so many years deeds of violence cannot be wanting. All that the victors yielded to the vanquished was this-the possession of the fleet which was now mediately at least at their service, and of their treasures which had been carried over sea. Supposing these to be the necessary conditions of the inglorious capitulation they quite suffice to prove the accomplishment of the prediction, c. xxvi. 9-13. B. H. C WHIGS, TORIES, AND DISSENTERS. THE Parliament which is now in the agonies of dissolution, has commanded little respect while living, and will be remembered with but little regret when dead. The Times indeed has recently taken it under its patronage, and penned a glowing eulogy of its deeds. "A great deal," it tells us, "has been done in the last six years, and it is time that the truth should be recognized;" but when it comes to specific details, a single sentence is sufficient to describe these wonderful performances. "In the way of finance we have effected wonders." This is in fact the one achievement to which Liberal members, returning to their constituents, can refer with any measure of satisfaction, and even on this point, there is not a little which might be said in abatement. The House of Commons has little claim for the gratitude of the people for what has been so happily effected by the ability, resolution, and independence of a minister whom it has regarded with scarce-concealed jealousy and distrust, whose measures it has sometimes thwarted, but to whom it dared not venture to offer a more determined opposition. In truth much as he has done, more might have been accomplished had his economical views met with more hearty sympathy. There is not much of which to |