spicuously the one free people of the world which, owing to its superior intelligence, has recognized the permanent value of order and observes it on every occasion, not least when a sudden alarm arises," it clearly follows that such perception and practice should be cultivated diligently in native citizens, and also implanted and fostered in citizens and strangers of foreign birth. Growth toward perfection is the condition of stability, health, and fruitfulness— a truth more distinctly perceived and deeply felt by the nation now than in any previous era.

Absolute regard for historic and contemporaneous facts is of first necessity to legislation and administration. The general and perpetual voice of men is as the sentence of God himself. For that which all men have at all times learned Nature herself must needs have taught ; and God, being the author of Nature, her voice is but his instrument." Obeying the dictates of that voice by striving to reach that perfection of personal and collective being which is "a triple perfection-first, a sensual, consisting in those things which very life itself requireth, either as necessary supplements, or as beauties or ornaments thereof; then, an intellectual, consisting in those things which none underneath man is either capable of or acquainted with; lastly, a spiritual or divine, consisting in those things whereunto we tend by supernatural means here, but cannot here attain unto them "--the laws of men adopted for self-guidance are conformable to that all-embracing law "whose seat is the bosom of God, whose voice the harmony of the world."

The evolution of beneficent law, organic and statutory, is commensurate with that of ethics; the evolution of ethics with that of religion; and the evolution of religion with that of oneness with Christ. His spirit, permeating and guiding moral life and thus making it one with his own, is the essential and eternal force that works in us unto individual and collective perfection. As the expositor of this force, as the ambas sador of the divine-human Saviour to a perishing, but salvable, world, the great apostle to the Gentiles intelligently and worthily magnified his office. So does every minister in the true following of the apostles. He preaches the law of God, as does the author of the 119th Psalm, as the touchingly benignant expression of his infinite knowledge, wisdom, and love, as the solvent of provi dential mystery, as the infallible leader to wholeness of being, fullness of peace, and eternity of bliss. In the sanctions of that law, in the fulfillment of promise and penalty, the divine goodness is no less obvious. If the blessing be refused and the curse

reflects no dis

respect of his

be chosen, the choice is one of moral freedom and credit on the Lawgiver, whose mind and will in subjects are not unto death, but unto eternal life. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clear, enduring forever the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward." (Psalm xix, 7-11.) They, in the fullest development of them by the Great Teacher, constitute an inerrant and all-sufficing rule of faith and practice. "The moral law, properly so-called, is the law of the perfect man, is the law of ideal conduct, is the statement in all cases of that which should be." Generalizations of universal human experience, crystallizing into ethical laws, under the skillfulest manipulation of patientest, most laborious, and gifted men, are confessedly inadequate to human need. The law of Christ lays down complete principles of conduct, and intrusts application of them to men. Wisely and benevolently applied, the law of Christ solves all difficulties, properly adjusts the relations of men to each other, and uplifts them most nearly to ideal life. Perfection, save of love, is not of this world. It will be the characteristic glory of that world which shall be when the Lord shall have made all things new. But this assurance does not relieve mankind from the keenest scrutiny of facts and causes, search for effective means of melioration, faithful trial of what seems best at the time, diffusion of knowledge, and concerted effort for the greatest good of the greatest number. The art of government in all its branches demands the highest qualifications of those to whom its practice is intrusted. The legislator, the jurist, the executive official hold public office as a public trust, and that for the good of the public, and not of themselves primarily. When this patent truth is ingrained in the public consciousness, voices itself in the election of unstained candidates, and actuates the public conduct of all servants of the people, then most of the unrest, violence, and fear of the nineteenth century will have passed away. The upward pathway of the nation will, for aught we can see to the contrary, be through friction, toil, and trial; but popular nullification of law will be wholly among the phenomena of the past.

THE ARENA.

PUL, JAREB, TIGLATH, AND THE CORRECTIONS.

IN the "Arena" of the January Review appears a kindly paper on my article of November for which I render to Professor Rogers, of Drew Theological Seminary, sincere thanks. In response, I submit the following:

1. That Tiglath-pileser III and Pul are names for one and the same person was absolutely determined to my complete and perfect satisfaction by the biblical historian in 1 Chron. v, 26, accepting the interpretation of Sir Henry Rawlinson. This, and that Jareb is simply another name for the same king, is not now new, but largely accepted. The latter idea, however, when years ago it first occurred to me, was original, having at that time, so far as I know, nowhere been published. What I supposed to be new, and what it was my purpose to subject to scrutiny, was the method of accounting for the apparent discrepancies between the biblical account and this identification, without discrediting either the Hebrew or Assyrian records. That Pul and Tiglath were one and the same person is the absolutely essential fact upon which my solution of the chronological problem proceeds. The identity of Poros with Pul is of no manner of consequence to my purpose. The name-introduced with a caveat, in an incidental way-became in some sort an apology for not inserting Poros as a fourth appellative of the great Tiglath. It is probable, perhaps (hardly yet certain), that Pul and Poros refer to the same person; but why Poros should be used, instead of either Pul or, especially, Tiglath-pileser III, so well known and renowned, and that by an Egyptian so late as the second century of our era, passes my comprehension, at least, and awaits explanation. Neither is it very satisfactory to be told that Pul is the Persian form of Poros, since the query arises as to how it happened that one who bore a Persian name should be king of Assyria in the time of Menahem, since at that time the Persians had hardly come to the surface, the same being largely true even at the date of the usurpation of the Tiglath (745) who for so long a time was known to Assyriologists as the second, but now as the third, king of that name. I have no complaint to make against any who may think the identification absolutely certain, it being matter of utter indifference to me, not in the least affecting any purpose or result that I have in view. It has sometimes happened, however, that so-called certainties have been subsequently recognized as uncertainties or mistakes, positive contradictions being by no means rare aves in Assyriological investigations. I repeat, what I have always held, that I accept as true in regard to dates and, for the most part, as to facts clear statements in the Assyrian records when these are consistent with themselves, and hold that supposed or apparent discrepancies in synchronization with the historical records of other peoples--especially the Hebrews-are due either to misreading or to mistaken interpretation or application, and not to the

records themselves. Of course, when Shalmaneser is so read as in one account of the battle of Karkar to be made to say that he slew 14,000 men, and in another account 20,500, and in still another 25,000, one can hardly think all these numbers accurate; but that does not invalidate the actuality of the battle or the date when it took place.

2. As to the paragraph referring to Asshur-lush (or nirari) and Asshurdayan (or dan) there is no mistake, except a typographical one-e for i in the first syllable of nirari, my letterpress copy being correct. Dates were intentionally omitted, as not necessary for my purpose, the only date needed that of the eleventh year of Assur-dan, the eighth year of Menahem—B. C. 763, being given in the subsequent paragraph. It may be well to add that dates in both the Assyrian and Hebrew chronology are for the most part dependent upon the years and successions of the rulers— aided, in the Assyrian, by the succession of certain subordinates, chiefly by the eponym, whose official term seems to have had a fixed limit. Neither knew anything of our eras; and the transfer to our figures may or may not fairly represent their meaning or date.

3. As to authorities, Professor Rogers seems to me somewhat too broad in his disparagement of Rawlinson and Smith. At all events my quotations from them were sufficient for my purpose and are not shown to be erroneous, and thousands can verify them who never have access to Schrader, Winckler, Rost, or Pinches. Yet I did not rely exclusively upon them, since before naming them at all I had quoted from Schrader his exact words. So, also, other authorities are given.

4. I now venture to affirm that it is not clear to me that Shalmaneser IV is the same person as Ululai, nor that Asshurbanipal "was known as Kandalanu at Babylon;" and that I am more and more inclined to the belief that the list of rulers of Babylon enumerated in the Ptolemaic canon, down to the fall of Nineveh (B. C. 607–606, Schrader), were, with few, if any, exceptions, simply rulers (viceroys or governors, as were the satraps of the Persian period) appointed by and subordinate to the Assyrian kings; at times in rebellion; sometimes, as when the Assyrian monarch was elsewhere engaged or hardly pressed, exercising a quasi-independence. That seems incontestably the case as to Nabopolassar, the last-named ruler of the series prior to the fall of Nineveh, who ruled from 625 to 604. The taking of the year B. C. 625 for the beginning of his rule and Schrader's date for the destruction of Nineveh justifies the title of viceroy, and also favors the story that his treachery, when in command of a division of the forces of the king, Saracus, precipitated the siege and destruction of the city and the disintegration of the Assyrian empire. As to the first ruler in this list, whose rule began two years before Tiglath ascended the Ninevite throne and continued until 733, it is incredible that so enterprising a king as Tiglath, who in 745 marched his army into Babylonia, should have passed the chief city without molestation if it had not been already subject to his power and ruled by a subordinate. If, then, the indications are that the first and the last of this series were viceroys or governors under the Assyrian kings, why should not those intermediate be the same?

Exceptions there may possibly be, as in the case where the Assyrian king administered directly, as did, perhaps, Sargon (Sarrukin) and Esarhaddon. Until after Kandalanu-Kineladanou-(626) the names familiar to historians and Assyriologists do not appear either in the Greek or the BabylonoAssyrian or Persian form, while the pregnant fact remains that, from the fall of Nineveh, the names of the historic rulers are recognized in all these forms as the kings common to all histories of that period.

5. As to my "main thesis,” I assume that Professor Rogers found the facts on which I rely to be as stated—as far as necessary for my purpose, which is to give a reason why the proved and admitted identity of Pul and Tiglath pileser III can be accepted without necessitating any violence to either the Hebrew or Assyrian chronological statements. My hypothesis, deduced, as I think, from the two histories, simply suggests that, during not fewer than eighteen years, Pul, having assumed the title of King of Assyria, was in rebellion, his revolt beginning in the city of Asshur; that early in this struggle or combat with the reigning dynasty he exacted tribute from Menahem; and that he finally succeeded in his usurpation. If, in perfect accord with the Bible, Assyriologists teach us that Merodach-baladan could thus rebel, struggle, and combat for thirty years to secure a less valuable prize-the throne of Babylon-is there anything incredible in the hypothesis, which contradicts no known fact, that for eighteen years another rebel should in like manner contest for the greater prize-supremacy in the most powerful imperium in the Orient?

6. I beg space for a brief credo. (1) I believe that both the Hebrew and Assyrian chronologies will synchronize without violence to either. (2) I believe it necessary, to this end, to reject (a) the identification of A-ha-ab-bu as 66 Ahab, "the son of Omri. The name is different in orthography, the dates of the two conflict, and Shalmaneser declares that, except Dadidri, the kings with whom he was at war were Hittites. We must reject, also, (b) the identity of Sir-'-lai with "Israel." "Sirlite " (Schrader, p. 189) is not "Israelite." Sir, as a proper name, is not found elsewhere for " Israelite," the names used being, Mat bit Hu-um-ri, or Samaria. If the kings were Hittites, Sir must be sought in their territory; and it may be identical with Es Sir, still existent near the battlefield of Karkar, the vicinity to which may have caused the marshaling of the entire population for the war. We must reject, also, (c) the identity of Ja-u-a-a-bal Hu-um-ri-i with "Jehu," the son of Nemshi. Instead of this, it is suggested that Jau is the Assyrian form of an affix or suffix which was used with the names of all but a few kings, both of Judah and Israel, from about Ahab's time downward. To Ahaz, one of these exceptions, the Assyrian added it. So familiar was it to the foreign ear that Necho, on deposing Jeho-Ahaz, elevated El-iakim to royalty by dropping the El- and adding Jeho-making his name "Jeho-iakim." (3) I believe that the tribute was paid by Jehoahaz to Shalmaneser, and that the Benhadad who commanded the Syrian contingent in the battle of Karkar was the son of Hazael, and not the Ben-hadad contemporary with Ahab. JOSEPH HORNER.

Pittsburg, Pa.