of The destruction of Sennacherib's great army on the plain of Philistia is passed over in silence. This is in entire accordance with the custom of the Assyrian annalists. They described conquests, but entirely ignored defeats and reverses. We read in the Bible that "Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh. And it came to pass, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Armenia. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead."` A clay tablet found at Nineveh is now in the British Museum, containing an account Esarhaddon's accession to the throne of his father, and a manifest reference to the tragedy that led to it. The inscription is only a fragment, but the first line preserved shows that the part lost must have described the murder of Sennacherib, and the receipt of the intelligence by Esarhaddon, who was then commanding an army on the northern border of the empire. We quote a few sentences: "From my heart I made a vow. My liver was inflamed with rage. Immediately I wrote letters, and I assumed the sovereignty of my father's house." Then after narrating his long and adventurous march and victory over rebel subjects, he continues, giving to his gods the praise for his success: "Ashur, the Sun, Bel, Nebo, Ishtar of Nineveh, and Ishtar of Arbela had me, Esarhaddon, on the throne of my father happily seated, and the sovereignty of the land had given to me," etc." Soon afterwards, having put down the revolt of Evilmerodach, and abolished the viceroyalty of Babylon, Esarhaddon established his own residence in that city, and this accounts for Manasseh king of Judah being taken captive to Babylon and not to Nineveh. We read in 2 Chron. 33: II: "The Lord brought upon them" (Manasseh and his people) "the captains of the host of the king of Assyria, which took Manasseh with rings, and bound him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon." This fact also is recorded on the Assyrian tablet, where a list is given of the conquered monarchs who were 1 Isaiah 37: 37, 38; 2 Kings 19:37. led captives to Babylon: "I assembled twenty-two kings of the land of Syria, and of the sea-coast and the islands, all of them, and I passed them in review-Baal king of Tyre; Manasseh king of Judah; Kadumukh king of Edom; Mitzuri king of Moab," etc.' We have only just touched, in this review, on some of the leading points in which recent exploration has illustrated and confirmed Bible history. The field is a very wide one, and, in the present state of theological and scientific thought, a most important one. The long-lost records of Babylonia and Assyria promise, when fully examined, to throw a flood of light not only upon divine revelation, but upon the history, the religion, and the social state of great primeval nations whose names and some of whose acts are mentioned in Scripture. Very much has yet to be done by the traveller and the excavator before the sources of information contained on sculptured slabs and inscribed tablets have been reached; and when that is done, a still more difficult task will remain in the classification of the materials and the deciphering of the records. But we look forward hopefully; men of ability and enthusiasm are engaged in the work, and a society has been instituted in London, one of whose main objects is to promote the study of biblical archæology. So long as we have such veteran orientalists as Rawlinson, Layard, and Birch, and so long as the subject enlists the scholarship of Oppert and Menant in France, of Delitzsch in Germany, of Talbot, Sayce, Rodwell, and Boscawen in England, we may confidently anticipate the most complete success. 'Recent explorations in Egypt, conducted mainly by Brugsch, Mariette, and Chabas, and those in Palestine, undertaken by English and American scholars, are no less interesting and important than the Assyrian researches. They illustrate every book in the Bible. But upon this inviting field we cannot for the present enter. We have said enough, however, to show that the Bible has nothing to fear from the most exhaustive research. Evidences of its historic accuracy are impressed on the ruins of Palestine, they are written on the tombs and temples of Egypt, and they are buried deep on sculptured stones and clay tablets, 1 "Records of the Past," iii., 120, 107. beneath the scathed mounds of Babylonia and Assyria. The touch of infidelity cannot obliterate them. Smitten to the dust by the judgment of heaven-dreary, desolate, forsaken, those primeval monuments will remain for ages to come irresistible proofs of the truth of the Bible. J. L. PORTER. GOD'S INDISCRIMINATE PROPOSALS OF MERCY AS RELATED TO HIS POWER, WISDOM, AND SINCERITY. IF F God makes proposals of mercy to men, who, he foresees, will certainly reject them and perish, and whom he immutably purposes to leave without effectual calling, how can his power and wisdom be cleared, save at the expense of his sincerity? or his sincerity at the expense of his wisdom or power? This is obviously the point in the Reformed or Augustinian theology most difficult of adjustment. The excogitation of the scheme of the "Hypothetic Universalists" among a part of the French Reformed, and the intricate discussions between them and the Genevans, evince the fact. It is also disclosed in the proposal of this problem by Sir Robert Boyle, to John Howe, as a proper subject for the exercise of his sanctified acumen. The result was his famous treatise, "The Reconcileableness of God's Prescience of the Sins of Men with the Wisdom and Sincerity of his Counsels," etc. It is against this point that the most persistent attacks of Arminians are still made. "It is at this point," says Dr. A. A. Hodge's “ Atonement,” 66 very wisely, We freely as we think, the Arminian erects his main citadel. admit that just here the advocates of that system are able to present a greater number and variety of texts which appear to favor the distinguishing principles of their system than they are able to gather in vindication of any other of their main positions." Then gathering together their scriptural evidence for the general and indefinite design of the Atonement, they proceed with great appearance of force to argue inferentially against the outflanked Calvinistic positions of unconditional 66 election and efficacious grace. In this manner Richard Watson, in effect, puts the strain of his entire argument upon this one position." The occasion for calling in question either God's sincerity, or his wisdom, or power, upon the supposition of an unconditioned decree, arises from three classes of Scriptures. One is the indiscriminate offer of salvation. Another is the ascription of Christ's sacrifice to love for "the world" as its motive, and the calling of him the " Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world," "giveth himself for the world" etc. The third is composed of those which present God as pitying all sinners, and even those who are never saved. Every reader's mind will suggest texts of each class. Now, it is notorious that these furnish the armory from which the Arminians equip their most pertinacious attacks on Calvinism; that it is on these texts the Calvinistic exegesis labors most and displays the most uncertainty; and that the usual Calvinistic solutions of them are scornfully denounced as inadequate by their opponents. These facts, of course, do not prove that the Arminians are right; but they evince the occasion for, and utility of, more satisfactory discussion. The attempt of the "Hypothetic Universalists" was to reconcile all the Scriptures by ascribing to God two acts of will concerning human salvation: one general and conditional volition to send Christ to provide expiation for all men, and to receive them all to heaven, provided they would believe on him; the other, a special and unconditioned volition to call the elect effectually, and thus insure that they should believe and be saved. Then they supposed that all the texts in question could be explained as expressions of the general and conditioned volition. But Turrettin's refutation (for instance, Loc. iv., Qu. 17th) is fatal. He urges that the only merciful volition of God in Scripture is that towards the elect; and "the rest he hardeneth;" that it is inevitably delusive to represent an omniscient and omnipotent Agent as having any kind of volition towards a result, when, foreseeing that the sinner will certainly not present the essential condition thereof faith - he himself distinctly purposes not to bestow it; that the hearing of the Gospel (Rom. 10: 14) is as means equally essential, and God pro |