was always in the way of both powers, for neither Babylon nor Egypt could wage a successful war without regard to it. Shishak, taking advantage of the revolt in Israel and the division of the kingdom after the death of the great Solomon, led his army northward through Judah, possibly as far as Jezreel. Success attended his arms, and, after the manner of great conquerors, on his return to Thebes he caused a great monument to be erected whereon he could inscribe a record of his victories. The stone for this edifice, as we learn from an inscription, was ordered from the quarries of Silsilis. The monument was doubtless an addition to the temple of Amen-Ra, at Karnak in Thebes. The names of the conquered places-one hundred and thirty-three in number—are graven upon the external south wall of the great edifice. They are cut upon the lower part of the human figures, engraved on separate squares, or rather ovals. In spite of the marred condition of a large number of these cartouches, many names familiar to the biblical student are easily recognized. Of these we may mention Gaza, Megiddo, Rabbith, Taanach, Shunem, Hapharaim, Beth-horon, Aijalon, Makkedah, Jehud, and Arad. It is to be regretted that Jerusalem does not appear on the list, but the name of the holy city might have been carved on one of the fourteen cartouches which are now perfectly illegible. Or, indeed, it might be the last number on the list, which is partially defaced. On this we have only the hieroglyphs for the first part of a word, usually deciphered "Jura." Many Egyptologists, like Maspero, would supply "shalama," which would give us "Jerusalem." That the capital of Judah was originally among the list is a reasonable conclusion.

Little more than two hundred years after the time of Shishak's invasion Palestine was again overrun, but this time by an army from the north. We are fortunate in possessing a lengthy account of this third expedition of the great warrior Sennacherib, not only in the Hebrew Scriptures, but also in the Assyrian monuments. The Hebrew chronicler has recorded the story in detail, and the reader is therefore referred to the account as given in the eighteenth chapter of 2 Kings, as well as in Isa. xxxvi-xxxix, and 2 Chron. xxxii, 1, ff. We shall only quote the following: "Now in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them." The Assyrian account of this campaign is contained in what is known as the "Taylor Cylinder," now in the British Museum. It covers a period of eight years, and tells how Sennacherib subdued the principal cities of Phenici and Philistia, and how he defeated the united hosts of Egypt and Ethopia at Eltekeh. That part of the inscription relating to Hezekiah and Judah has so many things in common with the biblical narrative that we can do no better than to reproduce it. There are a great many translations of this famous cylinder; we shall give that of Mr. Ball, published in his Light from the East. It runs as follows: "But as for Hezekiah of Judah, who had not submitted to my yoke, forty-six of his strong cities, together with numberless fortresses and small

towns in their neighborhood, I invested and took by means of the battering-ram and the assault of scaling ladders [or siege towers?], the attack of the foot-soldiers, mines, bills, and axes. I brought out from the midst of them, and counted as spoil, 200, 150 persons, young and old, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, oxen, sheep without number. As for himself [Hezekiah] I shut him up like a bird in a cage in his royal city of Jerusalem. I built a line of forts about him, and whoever came forth from the gate of his city I punished. His cities which I had plundered I severed from his territory, and gave them to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron, and Zil-baal, king of Gaza; and so I diminished his territory. To their former annual tribute I added an impost of presents to my lordship, and laid it upon them. Him, Hezekiah, the fear of my august lordship cast down; and the Arabians (?) and his trusty warriors whom he had brought in for the defense of Jerusalem, his royal city, fell away. Along with thirty talents of gold and eight hundred talents of silver, he caused to be brought after me precious stones, carbuncles, kassú stones, great pieces of lapis lazuli, ivory beds, ivory thrones, elephant hides and tusks, ushu wood, boxwood, all sorts of things a huge treasure, his own daughters, the women folk of his palace, men singers, women singers, to Nineveh, the city of my lordship; and he dispatched his envoy to pay the tribute and do homage."

A comparison of this inscription with the biblical statement will prove interesting and instructive. As has been pointed out, the two accounts supplement each other. The Assyrian writer is particularly careful not to mention the appalling disaster which befell Sennacherib's great army. This is perfectly natural, for all historians prefer to record the victories of their people, rather than to make prominent their defeats and humiliation. The fact that this Assyrian monument has nothing to say regarding the capture of Jerusalem is also significant. It is, indeed, a virtual acknowledgment that the expedition had not proved a complete success, and that the monarch was obliged to return to his country without having taken Jerusalem. The two accounts disagree concerning the amount of silver paid as tribute. The Assyrian record has eight hundred shekels, while the Hebrew has only three hundred. The word "shekel" might have had different values in Palestine and Assyria, or there may be a clerical error in one of the two accounts.

Though the monuments of antiquity have but meager references to Israel's capital at Jerusalem, the cuneiform inscriptions abound in references to places and persons directly connected with Palestine and the surrounding countries and people, and thus incidentally much light is thrown upon customs and manners, as well as upon historical and topographical questions. The subject is, however, too extended for specific review at this time, involving as it does a reference to different sculptures, obelisks, and other records, and a detailed study of the many valuable inscriptions which have thus been preserved.

MISSIONARY REVIEW.

MISSIONS IN EGYPT.

THE advance of the "thin red line" in Upper Egypt and the Soudan is attracting much attention to the matter of present and prospective missionary work in northeastern Africa. Long before the British occupation the American United Presbyterian Mission was begun in Egypt. They have gone steadily forward for forty-four years, accomplishing one of the eminent successes of modern Protestant missionary work. They began work at Cairo as early as 1854, and three years later at Alexandria. Nine years from their beginning at Cairo they established themselves at Asioot, a large town on the Nile. In 1866 they entered Faiyum, situated in the Western Desert, away from the Nile, but a very fertile district, the water being brought by canal through the hills and forming Lake Moeris. Step by step they have gone forward, and now occupy one hundred and ninety-seven mission stations throughout the country, the greater part of the work being carried on by native helpers, there being but fifty American missionaries, including wives of missionaries. Their work is chiefly among Moslems and Copts, the latter, though nominally Christians, being nearly as ignorant of the way of salvation as the Moslems. The government is Mohammedan, and the customs and manners of all are dominated by those of the Moslems. Between 1880 and 1890 the Mission nearly doubled its members and adherents, and in some cases trebled them. The population, to be sure, increased twenty-five per cent during that period, but the Mission advanced over one hundred per cent. This Mission has used literary agencies with great persistency. The whole of the Nile valley from Alexandria to the first cataract is divided among thirty colporteurs, offering in every street of every village and town copies of Scriptures in the language of the people, together with other Christian literature.

The

The Church of Scotland has a mission to Jews in Alexandria. Church of England Missionary Society has a mission at Cairo commenced ten years ago, with a medical mission and hospital at Old Cairo. They feel the need of a work among the fellahin. What is known as the North African Mission has work at Alexandria and Rosetta. The Dutch have a small mission at Kaliob, where they have worked with Dutch patience and persistence for many years. The British and Foreign Bible Society and the American Bible Society have been doing a great work, sowing the whole Nile valley with the Scriptures, printed chiefly in the Arabic tongue.

But all that is being done leaves much to be attempted. Of the seven and a half millions of people in Egypt five and one half millions live in country villages. There are fifty towns with populations varying from

three thousand to fifty thousand, without a single missionary. Out of the seven millions not less than six millions are untouched-these being the last available figures, as we have not the authority at hand which computes the present population of Egypt to be ten millions. Far away south is the Soudan, into which the British have penetrated to reduce the fanatical Mahdi hordes. Lord Kitchener has called for the establishment of a college at Khartoum as a memorial of General Gordon. He asked for half a million dollars, and is reported to have been tendered twice that amount. But that is not to be a Christian college, and by that much at least fails of being a suitable memorial of the noble Christian man it would seek to honor. Furthermore, Lord Kitchener as sirdar serves notice that such splendid organizations as the Church of England Missionary Society and all others, Romanist or Protestant, must keep out of the "sad Soudan." They may not even enter Khartoum itself, though they may advance up the Nile to the country of the Shillups. The Protestant missionary societies had made preparation to resume the work without delay, from which they were driven fifteen years ago by the Dervish insurrection, but they are now estopped by General Lord Kitchener, and Plenipotentiary Lord Cromer.

It is probable that, if this is understood to be a temporary regulation, because of war conditions in the Soudan, the British public will be patient under the restriction; but, if it is attempted to establish the rule as a permanent policy, nothing is more certain than that the sentiment of the people of Great Britain will rebuke it and reverse it, if Lords Kitchener and Cromer must be deposed to accomplish that end. The East India Company tried such a policy, but the British government assures religious freedom wherever its flag floats. Then, it is burnt into the consciousness of the British nation that it was the mistaken policy of the East India Company that was responsible for the India military, and they have little thought of making a second experiment of that sort. There is no more need for the British government to build up a strong Moslem State in Soudan than in Nigeria, where they have strongly patronized the work of missionaries.

"THE NEW JAPANESE TREATY.

WHAT is known as "exterritoriality " exists in many non-Christian countries, chiefly because all such have "unusual punishments," and because none of them have exhibited a regard for individual rights and impartial methods of trial of alleged offenders. No European, or rather no Christian, government has accorded to Turkey the right to try and punish any one of its subjects or citizens according to Turkish procedure and law. Justice is a scarce, if not an unknown, quantity in any of the sultan's courts for his own subjects, and the bitterest wrongs would be visited upon foreigners if left to the mercy of Turkish tribunals. The love of justice and of individual rights is a creation of Christianity.

Our own courts often fatally fail of the ideal, but that ideal is dear, and "rivers of blood" have flowed in its defense. China, as well as Korea, has such "ways that are dark" in court procedure that even Japan has demanded "exterritoriality" for its subjects in those countries.

The nations of the West have been slow to concede to Japan the power of arrest, trial, and punishment for their people. By the treaties which went into effect in July, however, this concession was granted, whereby Japan became the first and, as yet, the only nation of all Asia placed on this platform of equal rights. This privilege was not granted, however, without the demand for concessions on the part of Japan. Among these was the withdrawal of restrictions as to foreign residence, hitherto limited to five treaty ports, and the modification of the restriction as to the ownership of property so as to allow a twenty-year lease in the interior of the country.

There will be great need for the exercise of patience and mutual forbearance between the Japanese and other nations in the application of these new treaties. A distinguished Frenchman is quoted as saying, "The laws of Japan may now be called just and impartial; but the judges are almost wholly inexperienced in the application of Western laws, and, however determined their purpose is to be impartial, we cannot put large confidence in them." There will be more necessity than ever that foreigners-missionaries with the rest-shall learn the language more thoroughly and become more familiar with court procedure and etiquette, also, which counts for so much with the French of the Orient. They may even be brought into closer sympathy with the prisoners justly or unjustly confined in State and provincial prisons, and become more intelligent about any needed reforms in prison administration. Foreigners will scarcely like to be put on Japanese prison fare; it is doubtful if they could live on it.

There will always be, however, more or less of a check on the administration of these new treaties by Japan, through the ambition of the leaders-even the most zealous of the "nationals"-to appear as a civilized nation in the face of compacts made with such a combination of political factors as the United States, Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Austria, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, and many South American republics. Any grievous offense to the concensus of public opinion of these nations could be so readily checked by indirect diplomacy that there is no reason to hope that Japan will make still further advance under the new treaties toward being a civilized nation.

There has been much travel through Japan by foreigners, but always on a limited special permit, even missionaries making all their evangelistic tours with a passport expiring within a very short period. The refusal to foreigners of the right to hold property, even in the treaty ports, has led to the necessity of intrusting titles to the most reliable natives to be found. The latter, however, have found it possible to disregard the