we have now the true starting-point in search for unquestionable proofs of inspiration. On the voluntary admissions of such rationalists as we have quoted-and we could greatly multiply such quotations—it is apparent that Jesus, as the most highly inspired of our race, is the best judge of the inspiration of others. Where He recognizes inspiration, it would be presumptuous in those who recognize in Him the highest and deepest inspiration in spiritual things, to set up their feeble judgment against His. And on the part of those who are led, on the testimony submitted to them, to accept Jesus in His true character as the Christ, the Son of God, there can be no hesitation in accepting as inspired all that He accepts or promises as such. Thus, in this as in all other moral and religious problems, the solution is found in Jesus. He is the answer to every inquiry, the solver of all doubts, the final demonstration of every truth-" the Way, the Truth, the Life."

We are compelled to close abruptly, having already exceeded the time allotted to us. To show that Jesus did recognize the divine inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures, and that the inspiration of the New Testament Scriptures is involved in His promises to the apostles, would require another lecture, embodying the results of careful critical inquiry into His teaching. We must leave to our hearers the task of pursuing this inquiry for themselves.

A LETTER FROM MR. HORMUZD RASSAM,

[Remarks on Rev. Dr. Howard Crosby's observations on Mr. Rassam's paper which was read before the "American Institute of Christian Philosophy," on the 25th of October, 1883.]

Unfortunately I was not present when Dr. Crosby criticised my lecture, because I could have refuted, then and there, every stricture he cast upon my general capacity as archæologist and author, and not allowed his observations to be circulated without my answer. I had also the disadvantage of not seeing the proof of my paper before it was published, to enable me to make the necessary corrections.

I must take Dr. Crosby's animadversions in their regular order, and answer each separately.

Firstly, where did I confound Shalmaneser II. with Shalmaneser IV.? It was not my intention to enter minutely into the history of the four Shalmanesers, but I wished to point out the first of the Assyrian kings of that name who came into contact with the Israelites. Doubtless the mention in my lecture of the words of "the events recorded in the Bible" would lead the majority of readers to think that Shalmaneser of the obelisk was the same as the one who carried Israel captive, as Mr. Bonomi asserted in his work entitled "Nineveh and its Palaces," but the context ought to have shown that the words of Jehu King of Israel, were wanting after "tribute," mentioned in my lecture in the CHRISTIAN THOUGHT, page 131. I merely alluded to the deeds of Shalmaneser II., which are represented on the black obelisk found at Nimroud in connection with the Bible; as it is recorded on it, that he took tribute from the Israelites, and the very name of Jehu is mentioned amongst the vassal kings.

Secondly, I did not attempt to give the Assyrian rendering of the names of their kings, but pointed them out in their Hebrew or English nomenclature, as all Assyrian scholars have done in

the case of Tiglath-pileser, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, and Cyrus. Thus, as it is supposed by Assyriologists, that Pul of the Bible was Iva Lush or Phulukh, who is mentioned in an inscription found at the mound of Nimroud, I enumerated him amongst the Assyrian kings mentioned in Holy Writ.

Thirdly, I never made Assur-benipal "the last of the Assyrian kings," but I merely said that "the latter Assyrian monarchy terminated with Assur-benipal," because after the demise of that monarch the whole Assyrian Empire was shattered, and his successor, whoever he might have been, had scarcely power to cope with the rebellion that broke out in the immediate neighborhood of Assyria proper. The demolition of the Assyrian supremacy was so sudden that not an atom of any Assyrian record has been found to show what took place after the death of Assur-benipal, or the renowned Sardanapalus.

Fourthly, I cannot make out what moved Dr. Crosby to think that I had identified Calah-Shirgat with Resen of the Bible. On the contrary I said, "Nimroud may or may not be Calah, but I certainly do disagree with regard to the sites of Resen and Rahaboth." Further on, I added, "My idea is that Calah of the Scripture is Calah-Shirgat, Resen is Nimroud, and Rahaboth is a site which I partially excavated on the right bank of the Tigris about fifty miles from Nineveh, and twenty miles from Calah-Shirgat." There is no reason because we found on a cylinder the name of the latter place to be "Asshur," which was founded, according to the theory of Assyriologists, about the 17th century, B.C., we are to conclude that it had no other appellation. There are now a large number of towns and villages in the lands of the Bible which are called by different names; amongst which are Jerusalem, Aleppo, Damascus, and Cairo, which are known respectively among the natives of that country as Elkidis, Halab, Sham, and Masr. If some Assyrian scholars identify Resen of the Bible with "Asshur," the present Calah-Shirgat, from Ris-eni, which has been found in some Assyrian inscription, I am not responsible for their theories; nor can I be held accountable for learned geographers and savants. for identifying the same site with Resen from the notice given of it in the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem as "Tei-assar."

As far as I am concerned I never place implicit faith in the eccentric views of the so-called renowned scholars, whether upon Assyriology, philology, chronology, or geography; especially as regards the latter, as it has been proved to demonstration from my discoveries and observations that many sites which were considered to be in certain spots, I have found in other localities. I must confess I am very sensitive about any theory which is brought forward to contradict what I believe to be the Word of God; and I place greater faith in the chronological and geographical account given to us in the Old Testament than in any theory of man. If Dr. Crosby refer to the writings of Assyrian scholars, he will find that even for the last twenty-five years, they have been contradicting each other, and most probably will continue to do so.

Fifthly, it is not at all remarkable that a traveller who has seen with his own eyes and examined different ancient spots, should fail to recognize them in the same light as they appeared to others who jump at conclusions without having visited the ruins. I utterly reject the flimsy theory that Maggayir was Ur of the Chaldees, from whence Abraham came, and that the site of Paradise was at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, though eminent Assyrian scholars have gone out of their way to identify them as such.

Sixthly, I am quite at a loss to understand Dr. Crosby's insinuation about the allusion I made regarding Zoroaster's acquaintance with the Old Testament. This information I obtained from Faussett's "Englishman's Critical and Expository Bible Cyclopædia," published in London in 1878; and it is the first time that I have heard of this learned divine making "loose assertions," according to the theory of Dr. Crosby.

Last, but not least, it is very hard to understand what possessed Dr. Crosby to allude to the late Mr. George Smith in connection with my sphere of research. The deceased Assyriologist had his field of labor, which was the decipherment of the cuniform writing, and I have mine, in exploring ancient sites and discovering relics of the past; and it is certainly very novel to me, and to those who study the history of the Assyrian and Babylonian researches to learn for the first time from Dr. Crosby's

remark that Mr. George Smith is considered to have been a "finder." He was, without any doubt, sent to Nineveh by the proprietors of the Daily Telegraph to search for a missing portion of the famous deluge tablet, discovered by me twenty years before; but what he found was recovered from Sir Henry Layard's old diggings and mine, both at Koyunjik and Nimroud.

NINEVEH HOUSE, SPRING GROVE, ISLEWORTH, December 10th, 1883.

NOTES BY Rev. Dr. CROSBY.

H. RASSAM.

I. No one can read p. 131 and not suppose the Shalmanezer of the 15th and 21st line to be the same.

2. Pul and Vul-lush are not supposed to be the same by Assyriologists.

3. Convicts itself.

4. I didn't say he made Calah Shirgat to be Resen, but that he said Assyriologists did, and that his identification of it (as Calah) was defective.

5. I never said anything about Mugheir.

6. Faussett's Cyclopædia is not authority. 7. George Smith was a finder.

H.C.