usages and institutions in Judea, and every other country where they had to take a census; the rather because in this way they could employ a machinery which would be less revolting to the natives, and more effectual for their own purposes. The temper of the Jews, as appears in the beginning of this article, was such as to require the Roman commissioners to avoid all unnecessary vexation; and doubtless they were desirous to gain the co-operation of the Jewish authorities, as well as the facilities afforded by long-established laws and customs.

A still more extraordinary allegation is, that Augustus had not the power to order a census in Judea. Yet the relations in which the emperor stood to Herod the Great, to Archelaus, and to the Jewish nation generally, were, beyond a doubt, of such a kind that he could command and effect whatever he pleased and judged expedient. And Josephus, as we have already seen, expressly states, that Cyrenius was sent by Augustus for the purpose, among other things, of enrolling and taxing the Jewish nation. This was only the last link of the chain which, for a long series of years, the Romans had been forging for that unhappy people.

The view we have given removes another objection: 'No census is recorded by the history of the times.' Granted that the census imagined to have taken place at the birth of Jesus is not recorded. But the reader has already seen, that Josephus declares Cyrenius did, in agreement with Luke's words, hold a census of the Jewish people not long after he undertook the government of Syria.

CYRUS (the Greek form of the Hebrew Koresh, which is an imitation of the Persian Khorschid, denoting the sun), is the ordinary appellation of the celebrated founder of the Medo-Persian empire.

There are three original sources whence a knowledge of the life of Cyrus may be drawn:- I. Herodotus, the oldest of them (cir. 450, A.C.) has, in his sketch of universal history, given details respecting the leading events; and, as the father of profane history, must be allowed to be a respectable authority. Indeed, the general credibility of his narratives has in late years gained much ground. II. Ctesias, a Greek physician at the court of Persia (cir. 400, A.C.), wrote, from Persian sources, with the special purpose of communicating to the Greeks correct notions of the East, and especially of Persian affairs, a detailed history; our knowledge of which, however, is confined to the use made of it by Photius, Diodorus Siculus, and others. III. Xenophon, the celebrated pupil and biographer of Socrates, a contemporary of Ctesias, has given us an entire piece, in which he professes to describe the life of Cyrus from his boyish days, which it has been too customary to

describe as for the most part a work of the imagination, designed to exhibit an ideal conception of the education of an oriental prince.

No ancient hero has been more fortunate in his biographers than Cyrus. If Achilles was happy in having Homer for the herald of his prowess, Cyrus enjoys a singular distinction in furnishing to three of the chief Greek historians a subject not unworthy of their pens. And these three biographers lived at no great distance from the events which they undertook to record; for Cyrus died 529-30, A.C. Herodotus came in the age immediately succeeding that of Cyrus; Ctesias was his junior, only by a few years; and Xenophon was but little younger than Ctesias. The events also with which they occupied themselves were acted on the great theatre of the world. Cyrus fought for and gained the empire of the East, which, till after the Greeks had vanquished their Persian invaders, brought with it the empire of the West. If, moreover, the disposition and training of Herodotus inclined him to take his materials with too ready a credence, Ctesias assumed the character of a critical historian; while Xenophon, coming after the two others, and living at a time when writing had become an art, and the East lay open to the diligent investigation of Greek scholarship, possessed the means of giving a correct as well as full account of the life of his famous hero. These are circumstances which rarely concur in the biography of ancient or even modern princes, and seem to afford a guarantee of our finding accordant materials for a complete history of Cyrus. Yet the materials which are thus actually furnished are discordant and incompatible; and that to such an extent, that Winer gives a preference to the narratives of Xenophon, because he agrees with the statements and implications of the Bible.

Our purpose in these remarks is to afford the unlearned reader some means of judging for himself of the comparative value of the Biblical history. For instance, various diversities and alleged discrepancies have been pointed out as existing in the narratives, given by the four evangelists, of the life of our Lord. These diversities and alleged discrepancies have been made the most of, in order to divest the evangelical history of all claim to credibility. To a great extent, the objection owes its force to a dexterous, if not unscrupulous logic. But let the variations be as marked, as numerous, as irreconcileable, as the hardiest assailant may please to represent, - we ask if they approach to the broad contradictions found in the statements given by Herodotus, Ctesias, and Xenophon, respecting Cyrus. We challenge comparison. The result cannot fail to be highly favourable to the evangelical narratives. We speak advisedly, and after some

inquiry, when we affirm that there is no ancient history comparable for truth with that of the Bible, to say nothing of its inspiration; and that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, humble in the world's opinion as they comparatively were, have left us a more consistent history of Jesus Christa history combining more of the attributes of truth than the three historians aforementioned have given us of Cyrus; than Plato and Xenophon have left of their great master Socrates; or than his numerous historians wrote of Alexander the Great.

In order that the reader may be in some measure able to judge for himself, we shall set down a few facts; and first we shall supply a general outline of the life of Cyrus, as furnished in the Cyropædia of Xenophon.

Cyrus was the son of Cambyses, king of Persia, and of Mandane, a daughter of the Median king Astyages. At twelve years of age, he repaired to the court of his maternal grandfather; and, when only sixteen, led an army against the Assyrians or Babylonians, and then returned to Persia. Hence he was sent to assist his uncle, Cyaxeres II. against the Babylonians; received from him the supreme command over all the Median forces; defeated Cræsus, king of Lydia; and soon after, overcoming Nabonued (Belshazzar), king of Babylon, by the conquest of his capital, put an end to the Chaldæan dominion (538 or 539, A.C.). Cyaxeres gave him his daughter in marriage, and with her the succession to his throne. On the death of Cambyses, Cyrus assumed the Persian sceptre, and, on the retirement of Cyaxeres, that also of the Medo-Babylonian empire (536 or 535, A.C.). He reigned in possession of this vast power till 529-30, A.C. when he died of the decay incident to old age, after having, in anticipation of his death, of which he had received a divine premonition, offered customary sacrifices, and delivered a long admonitory address to his sons.

As the Scriptural narrative falls in best with the account of Xenophon, we shall supply from it what information is necessary, before we proceed to exhibit the discrepancies to which we have referred.

With the statement made above, that Cyrus overthrew the empire of Babylon, the Scripture accounts are in full accordance; and that important event they not only mention, but predict. Our space compels us to be content with giving references (Isa. xli. 2, 3, 25, 26; xliv. 28, where Cyrus is named; xlv. 1, where Cyrus is termed the Messiah of Jehovah; xlvi. İl; xlvii. 1, seq.; xlviii. 14, seq.: see BELSHAZZAR and BABYLON). Scarcely had the conqueror ascended the throne, when he issued a decree, giving the captive Jews permission to return to their loved native land, and to rebuild their venerated temple (536, A. C. Ezra i. 1; v. 13; vi. 3. Dan. i. 21). This royal indulgence Josephus

ascribes to the king's perusal of the prople cies of Isaiah. The passage is too curious to be passed over: God stirred up the mind of Cyrus, and made him write this (the decree) throughout all Asia: "Thus saith Cyrus the king, - Since God Almighty hath appointed me to be king of the habita ble earth, I believe he is that God whom the nation of the Israelites worship; for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusa lem, in the country of Judea.” This was known to Cyrus, by his reading the book which Isaiah left behind him of his prophecies; for this prophet said, that God bad spoken thus to him in secret vision: “My will is, that Cyrus, whom I have appointed to be king over many and great nations, send back my people to their own land, and build my temple." This was foretold by Isaiah a hundred and forty years before the temple was demolished. Accordingly, when Cyrus read this, and admired the divine power, he was seized with an earnest desire to fulfil what was so written' ('Antiq.' xi. I. 1 and 2). Any general influence from similarity of religion as between Cyrus and the Jews, we have no grounds for supposing. The aversion of the Persians to the worship of images found a corresponding feeling in the Jews, and may have had some weight with the king (Ezra i. 2, 3). But, if there is any reason to suspect Josephus of being by his patriotism led to throw some warmth of colouring over his picture of Cyrus's motives, there were political considerations which would weigh with so prudent a monarch, who, on his proud and lofty seat, contemplated nothing less than a universal empire. For Egypt could not fail to disturb his pleasing dreams, and he would easily see how important it was to have a strong friendly power in Palestine, by whose means the land of the Nile might quietly be kept in check. The force of this consideration will be estimated, when the reader knows, that only eleven years elapsed before the Persians achieved the conquest of Egypt, and the neighbouring countries (525, A.C.). It is by no means unreasonable to suppose, that distinguished Jews may have had some influence on the mind of Cyrus even indirectly, especially when we call to mind the part which Daniel had taken, if not in preparing the way for, certainly in foretelling, the overthrow of the Chaldæan dynasty— (Dan. iv. v. vi. vii.). Not impossibly, Cyras was somewhat afraid of having in his empire so large a body of (comparatively) cultivated men, of distinguished ability and great force of character, detained there as captives, and longing for the hills of Judes, and the solemnities of the temple. He may have seen, what their whole history shows, that the Jews were very impatient both of bondage and of exile, and little disposed to

leave untried an opportunity of regaining their liberty, should one be presented by the absence of the monarch on any enterprise of ambition. Whatever the motives by which Cyrus was actuated, a monarch such as he was obviously the person likely to take the decided step of sending back the captive Israelites.

Not without due reflection did Herodotus apply himself to his narrative respecting Cyrus. Of four ways of relating his history, which prevailed in the time of the historian, he chose that one which rested on Persian authority, and seemed to him least charged with impressions derived from the magnifying power of veneration. The history thus carefully chosen is briefly as follows:- The Median king Astyages, under the effect of a dream which made him fear that a grandson would rob him of his throne, was induced to marry his daughter Mandane to Cambyses, a Persian of the lower ranks. When Mandane had borne a son, Astyages commanded his trusty servant Harpagos to put the child to death. An accident rescued the boy from this peril. He was, under the name of Agradatos, brought up by a shepherd, but in his tenth year recognised as a grandson of the king. Astyages, moved by the magi, sent the boy back to his parents, and punished Harpagos for not having executed his fell design. Harpagos, meditating revenge, allied himself with the chief of the Medes, who were discontented with the government of Astyages, and induced Cyrus, then grown to man's estate, to avail himself of the prevalent disaffection, and to enter Media, in order to take possession of the entire kingdom. Cyrus brought the Persians into the plan. The consequence was, that Astyages lost the throne (559, A.C.), after he had reigned thirty-five years. The monarch was kept in a sort of honourable bondage till he died. Cyrus changed but little in the constitution of the Medes, and his Persians soon adopted the customs of their captives. He extended the limits of his empire, especially by the conquest of Croesus. Since he could not hold possession of Asia Minor so long as the Babylonian power lasted, and as its monarch Nabonnedus was an ally of Croesus, he led an army against Babylon. He conquered the Babylonians in the open field, but had great difficulty in overcoming the city, of which he made himself master only by turning the course of the Euphrates, and entering with his troops by means of the emptied channel of the river. Recognising the existence of a variety of narratives respecting the end of Cyrus, Herodotus gives that which he believed most entitled to credit, namely, that the monarch lost his life in battle with the Massagetai, a warlike nation of Scythia. After Cyrus had obtained a victory by craft, the queen Tomyris, collecting all her force,

came to a decisive engagement, in which, having reigned twenty-nine years, Cyrus fell with the greater part of his troops. His vanquisher put his head into a basin filled with blood, in order that it might quench its thirst.

The divergence between this account and that of Xenophon is very apparent. Indeed, there is only such a degree of resemblance between the two, as to let the reader see that it is the same person of whom the two historians speak.

The diversity is not diminished, if we bring Ctesias forward. Agreeing with Herodotus, that Cyrus dethroned Astyages, he declares that Cyrus had been previously connected with Astyages in such a manner, that he had, as a conqueror, married Amytis his daughter, on which Astyages gained dominion over the Barcoi, and lived on good terms with his son-in-law; but at a later period, being betrayed by a eunuch, who, at the command of Cyrus, accompanied Astyages, the latter, when on a journey to visit the former, was allowed to perish in the desert, of hunger and thirst. Nor does Ctesias agree with Herodotus or Xenophon as to the death of Cyrus. Ctesias makes Cyrus lead an army against Amoræos, king of the Derbikoi, a Scythian tribe. Indians, who were the auxiliaries of the Derbikoi, employing their elephants, put the Persian cavalry to flight; in which route Cyrus stumbled, and received from an Indian soldier a fatal wound. While yet living, he was brought into the camp, where he acknowledged as his successor his eldest son Cambyses, and assigned to his youngest son, Tanyoxartes, a province free of tribute. He died on the third day after he had been wounded, in the thirteenth year of his reign. To refuse credence to the entire history of Cyrus,-to deny his conquest of Babylon,-to throw doubts on his existence,-to account for the divergent narratives by alleging fraud or fiction,—would be accounted harsh, unjustifiable, if not unjust; betraying a sweeping spirit of condemnation, which, in the end, would leave ancient history a blank. But what shall be said of the same process when applied to the gospel? especially since in this case the variations are inconsiderable, and have no other appearance than such as must always arise when well-informed and credible historians write independently of each other.

Cyrus has been recognised in the ram that stood before the river, which had two horns, and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last,' seen by Daniel,--'pushing westward, and northward, and southward, so that no beasts might stand before him, neither could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great' (Dan. viii. 3, 4).

DABAREH (H.), a Levitical city at the foot of Tabor, on whose ruins now stands the village Dabury (Josh. xxi. 28). At this place, the events recorded in Matt. xvii. 14-21, are believed to have taken place. The Christians built here a commemorative church on the site of the house into which Jesus was held to have retired after the performance of the miracle. Of this church there are still some remains. They also show, in the vicinity of Tabor, and of the village of Dabury, a fountain, named 'the well of the nine apostles;' who are said to have there awaited the descent of their Master from the Mount of Transfiguration. At an early period there was, on the same spot, a chapel, which was dedicated to the nine apostles.

DAGON (H. from dag, a fish), the national divinity of the Philistines of Ashdod and Gaza (Judg. xvi. 23. 1 Sam. v. 1, seq.), which appears to have had the head and hands of a man (1 Sam. v. 4), but from the navel downwards the parts of a fish; though authorities here somewhat differ, and Philo makes Dagon to be exclusively a male of the human form. Dagon, as the male, was connected with Derceto or Atergatis, the female fish-god of the Philistines; and, hereby, with Astarte, whose worship was practised by the Philistines (1 Sam. xxxi. 10). The position of the Philistines on the coast, and the food which they drew from the sea, were the causes which led them, in common with other maritime peoples, to pay religious honours to the fish. In Judg. xvi. 25, seq. mention is made of a temple of Dagon which Samson destroyed. The building appears to have resembled a modern Turkish kiosk, which consists of capacious halls, the roof of which is in the fore part supported by pillars. On the roof of such buildings intemperate pleasures were customarily enjoyed. The temple of Dagon in Ashdod was burnt by Jonathan (1 Mace. x. 84. Joseph. 'Antiq.' xiii. 4. 5).

DALMANUTHA (C. bad abode), a town or village beyond Jordan, in the eastern part of the tribe Manasseh, and on the south east of the Sea of Galilee. The place was utterly destroyed by the Romans (Mark viii. 10).

DALMATIA-into which Titus (2 Tim. iv. 10) is reported to have gone shortly before Paul's demise e-was a province of the Roman Illyricum, lying on the Adriatic Sea, between the rivers Titius and Drinus, south of Liburnia, having the cities Salona, Epidaurus, Lissus, and others. The incident recorded of Titus gives reason to think, that

he preached the gospel to the Dalmatians with acceptance and success.

DAMARIS, a woman of Athens, who was converted by the preaching of Paul (Acts xvii. 34). Some have conjectured, that Damaris should be written Damalis, which is a common female name among the Greeks. As no descriptive epithets are employed to distinguish her, she may have been a person of note. However, she owes her chief distinction to her being mentioned by the apos tle. Thus even a slight connection with truly great men confers earthly immortality; but eternal life can be gained only by intimate alliance with Christ.

DAMASCUS lies in a plain in the northeast of Syria, being from six to eight days' journey from Jerusalem, and is one of the oldest cities in the world; in whose territory, if we may believe tradition, dwelt Adam, after he had been banished from Paradise. About half a day's journey from Damascus, near Abila, is a lofty hill with a flat top, covered with beautiful trees, and having a cavern. Here Cain and Abel are said to have offered their sacrifices. Damascus-called in Hebrew Dammesek, in Arabic Dimaschk, in Syriac Darmsuk, and by the modern Arabs Es Scham-is, as the last name indicates, the capital of Syria. According to Josephus, the place was founded by Uz, a grandson of Shem. The city certainly existed in the days of Abraham; for it is mentioned as the native place of Eliezer, the patriarch's steward; and, from the style of the narrative, the writer evidently held it to be an ancient place (Gen. xiv. xv. 2). Till the time of David, Damascus appears to have been an independent state. In the reign of that monarch, the Syrians of Damascus having sent succour to Hadadezer, king of Zo bah, against whom David was making war, suffered a severe defeat, and became subject to Israel (2 Sam. viii. 3-8). The subjection. however, did not long endure; for, near the end of Solomon's reign, Rezon, a subject of Hadadezer, avenged his sovereign against the Hebrews, by making himself master of the city (1 Kings xi. 23-25); when Damascus became the seat of a new and energetie government, which occasioned trouble and danger to the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Jeroboam II. of Israel overcame Damascus (2 Kings xiv. 28), which was accounted a Hebrew tributary; but, after his death, the city recovered its independence, and Rezin became its sovereign. He united with Pekah, king of Israel, against Judah, whose ruler Ahaz sought aid of Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria, who subdued and sacked Damascus

(Isa. viii.). From this time, Damascus, unable to support itself, shared the fate of the kingdoms on whom it was successively dependent. After the fall of the Assyrian empire, it fell into the hands of the Babylonians. Thence it passed to make a part of the Persian empire, under whose sway it had a period of great prosperity. After the death of Alexander the Great, who subdued the Persian monarchy, Damascus formed a part of the Syrian empire, under the Seleucida. Under these kings, Damascus lost a portion of its greatness, by being neglected of its masters, who founded new cities in the northern part of their kingdom, since the Egyptians were taking pains to bring Syria under their power. In the contest of the Maccabees against the Syrian monarchs, Damascus was probably conquered by Jonathan (1 Macc. xii. 32). About the year 64, A.C. the Romans brought Damascus under their power. At a later time, king Aretas, of Arabia, appears to have been master of Damascus; for he had there a representative, who, in order to gratify the Jews, endeavoured to seize the apostle Paul (2 Cor. xi. 32). The Romans,

however, are again found lords of Damascus; and, under their emperor Diocletian, it rose to eminence and splendour, which it has never wholly lost; for that monarch saw in Damascus a city by which effectual opposition could be given to the growing power of the Saracens, and therefore not only carefully fortified it, but placed there abundant magazines, and set up within its walls a manufactory of arms; so that, from so early a period as this, may probably be traced the still surviving fame of the Damascus blades. The emperor Julian gave this city a preference over all others, in consequence of its magnitude and beauty, as well as the splendour of its temples, and other public buildings. On the same account, the caliphs in the seventh century made it for some time the metropolis of their power. In the year 1517, it was conquered by the sultan Selim; since which, it has remained under the dominion of the Turks, who have a pacha in the place. It is at the present day in great prosperity, owing mainly to the fact, that the chief route runs through it, pursued by caravans "on their way to Mecca.