moved to action by a consideration of his own happiness, but he held that the prospect of enjoyment or pain in the next world would naturally have a most preponderating influence upon his calculations. According to him, the Supreme Being enforces his will upon men by the promise of reward and the threat of punishment. This system, so different from Mr. Mill's, appeared likely to become obsolete. But it has been revived by a writer of well-known vigour and acuteness, whose speculations on ethics and theology have been chiefly given to the public without his name in the Pall Mall Gazette and in Fraser's Magazine. This writer, in the Pall Mall Gazette of June 5th and 8th, 1869, undertakes to explain "ought" on rigorous Benthamite or Paleyan principles, and finds in it the meaning "will, on certain assumed conditions." "He ought not to commit a crime," for example, means "He will not commit it, if he pays a natural and reasonable regard to the consequences which will overtake him for doing it." And the most terrible consequences are those which belong to the next world. It would probably be convenient, and it would fall in with the usual illustrations of a writer whose ethics breathe of the Criminal Court, to leave rewards alone and to speak only of punishments. "Law," he says, "whether of the temporal or of the spiritual power, is nothing but organized and systematic intimidation." Now there is no doubt that men's action is greatly influenced by fear of punishment. Those who believe in the filial relation of men to a perfect God as giving the most complete explanation of human duty, will recognise the value of intimidation for just such purposes as the writer in question has in view. They have always held that the Law is necessary for the restraint of the unrighteous disposition; although it is not their doctrine that it is the source of righteousness or goodness.

The will of God:-but how is the will of God to be ascertained? Well, we must certainly take care, as we have been lately warned to do, not to speak of God as if He were a man in the next street. If Mr. Mill or M. Comte can show that anything is right because it promotes the general good, springs from a healthy moral state, is bound up with progress, we may readily accept the same evidence as proving the same thing to be according to the will of God. Let a practice have the strongest imaginable religious sanction, if it can be shown on sufficient evidence to be really and on the whole injurious to the interests of mankind, it is impossible that we should continue to believe it to be prescribed by the will of God. We think we have other information as to the will of God; but no other can be in the long run more convincing than that supplied by conduciveness to the happiness of mankind.

The old snare of orthodoxy is that of not merely using some

particular mode of reading the will of God, but of insisting on that mode as solitary and exclusive in its authority. If we are simply anxious to learn what it may please the Creator of the universe and Redeemer of mankind to communicate to us, by any of the processes which may be suitable to the modes of his action in the world, we may be able to welcome any contribution to our knowledge which the honest observation of facts may supply. In the physical world, we are learning to admit every well-supported theory of the modes of change and development, as not conflicting with, but illustrating, the action of the Divine Creator. Discoveries which seem to show us how things have come about, have no proper tendency to weaken our faith in Him who prescribes the way and gives the impulse. So, in the moral world, there is no theory as to the determination of right or wrong, or as to the genesis of conscience, professing to rest on facts, which we who look to the will of God as supreme may not gladly credit with the whole value which the facts seem to impart to it. Suppose it to be shown that moral feelings are transmitted together with physical characteristics from parent to child; suppose it to be shown that social opinion impresses its judgments by the unwearying urgency of threats and punishments with great effect upon the growing nature: why should not these be partial methods of Divine discipline? We observe in the world of mankind a marvellous and intricate order; we see incessant reciprocal influence, curious likenesses and differences, a body composed of individuals who are changed from minute to minute, yet maintaining a homogeneous growth of thought and sentiment which speaks of a common spiritual life: all these phenomena should be full of interest and instruction to us, and we should only rejoice that in the confession of a divine purpose we have a centre of unity for them all, and know how to find an origin, a meaning, and a hope, for what we see or experience. There is neither need nor inducement to make human intuitions the ultimate foundations of our building, when the will of God has been revealed to us by life and history and is illustrated by the whole progressive creation.

J. LLEWELYN DAVIES.

IT

Revue Archéologique, No. III. et No. IV. Mars et Juin. Paris, 1870.

T is seldom that an archæological discovery awakes such interest in these modern times as has been aroused during the present year by the curious monument of antiquity, known now far and wide as "the Moabite Stone." In general a few students, scattered sparsely over the length and breadth of the land, are stirred more or less deeply by such an announcement as that made in March last by M. Clermont-Ganneau, while the public at large remains unimpressed and apathetic, either unaware of the fact, or attributing to it little or no importance. But the Moabite Stone, by some happy concurrence of circumstances, was scarcely introduced to the notice of the British public when it found itself famous. Like a lucky actress or singer, it took us by storm. Not in the universities only, but in the metropolis-not in learned circles merely, but in fashionable ones -it was the topic of the day. Politicians, lawyers, statists, men of business, nay, ladies-ladies, moreover, never previously suspected of having in their mental colouring the faintest tint of blue-talked of it, discussed it, argued about it, expressed opinions as to its age and its contents, and smiled if they met with any one who confessed to complete ignorance on the subject. We need scarcely say that these drawing-room discussions were not remarkable for depth; nor need we add that after a brief space they passed away, yielding to the more ordinary topics of exhibitions, operas, balls, garden-parties,

engagements, flirtations, vacation flittings, and the like-the usual "small change" of social intercourse in the "society" of our time and country.

It would be a curious, but perhaps scarcely a profitable inquiry, to investigate the causes which gave to this particular discovery so exceptional a notoriety. It was not the mere occurrence in the monument of interesting Scriptural names; for "Omri" and "Mesha" cannot possibly compare for interest with Ahab and Benhadad, Hezekiel and Sennacherib, names which had been discovered on ancient monuments without producing anything like a sensation. It was not that the relic could claim any extraordinary antiquity; for the monuments of Egypt, about which no special enthusiasm has ever been felt, are in many cases at least a thousand years older. It was not that there had been any great triumph of human intellect or ingenuity in the decipherment, for many scores of scholars, both in England and on the Continent, could have done the work performed by M. Ganneau equally as well, had they enjoyed his opportunity. It was rather, perhaps, in the first place, that the entire nature and character of the discovery was level to the ordinary intelligence; and, secondly, that it was ushered into the world-in England, at any rate-in a peculiarly favourable way. The "leading journal" first gave it to the British public; and gave it, moreover, with all the advantages of prominent situation, large type, and the strong remark, that it was "like a page of the Bible." General attention was thus called to it at once; and the excitement being further kept up by some controversy as to the relative share of England, France, and Prussia in the discovery, and there happening to be at the time a dearth of topics of importance to occupy the public mind, the matter acquired the prominence and notoriety which seem to us so remarkable.

We are far from complaining of the interest excited, or from wishing that it had been less than it has been. We only wish that in all cases a proportionate interest were felt in similar documents and discoveries-documents and discoveries, we mean, connected with the historical Scriptures, and authenticating the statements contained in them. Scarcely does a year pass without the exhumation from the records of Assyria or Babylonia of some facts bearing as closely upon Jewish or Israelite history as the facts recorded upon the Moabite Stone; but as they make their appearance in learned journals which enjoy but a small circulation, or in books of a solid character which are read by few, the impression that they produce upon the world is slight and almost imperceptible. It is not easy to devise a remedy for this. We are afraid the "leading journal" would scarcely undertake to disseminate each such discovery as it

occurs; yet, while they have to be sought for in the pages of the Athenæum or the Zeitschrift für Egyptische Sprache, it can hardly be expected that they should produce any important effect upon the world at large.

Before the interest that the discovery of the "Moabite Stone" excited has altogether died away, it seems to us desirable that it should be understood somewhat more distinctly than it is, what really are the gains which science and literature have made from the document in question; what (if any) further gains are to be expected from it; and what, therefore, are its real value and proper place among the discoveries of our day. There has been, it seems to us, a tendency in many quarters to over-estimate, as there has been in some a tendency to under-estimate, the importance of the document; while very few indeed of those whose comments it has provoked have shown an intelligent appreciation of the peculiar value which it possesses, the respects in which it is unique and unrivalled, a treasure to the antiquarian unsurpassed in the present, and not very likely to be surpassed in the future.

First, however, not to assume too much knowledge on the part of our readers, let us briefly recapitulate the history of the "Stone." In the autumn of 1868, M. Klein, a Prussian gentleman, travelling for his pleasure in Palestine, received intelligence of a curious monument, as existing in the Moabite country, to the east of the Dead Sea; and being induced by the reports brought him to extend his travels in that direction, he saw the Stone in situ, amid the ruins of a town known to the natives as Dhibán, and copied a portion of the inscription upon it, which was at once seen to be in the character known to Oriental scholars as "Phoenician." The general nature of the discovery of M. Klein became known shortly after to the European Society of Jerusalem, and efforts were made, both by the French consul, M. Clermont-Ganneau, and the English agent of the Palestine Exploration Fund, Captain Warren, to obtain "squeezes," or paper casts, of the inscription by means of native agents. At the same time M. Klein entered into communication with the Turkish Government, and endeavoured to obtain the Stone itself through their instrumentality. Reports of the intention of the Government to interfere having reached the natives, their jealousy was aroused, and they determined to destroy the monument which seemed likely to bring them into trouble; a determination which they carried into effect by burning a fire about the Stone, and then throwing cold water upon it, whereby it was broken into fragments, which were then dispersed among the tribes and hidden away. Before, however, this had been done, M. Clermont-Ganneau had succeeded in obtaining a paper cast of the entire inscription by the exertions of a