But it should be considered, whether, in a country pervaded by Presbyterian forms, it would be a good policy on our part to imitate these forms so closely, that outside observers could see no great difference between us and the churches around. Of course we would have an explanation ready at hand of the essential difference between our Council, and the Presbyterian court of review, but, swayed as most people are by appearances, it is questionable whether our most vehement assertions on this point would be much heeded. Even very discriminating observers might regard the difference between our system and Presbyterianism very much the same in amount as that between Ritualism and Romanism, and if they had to choose between the two, they might prefer the genuine article to the imperfect imitation. They might naturally conclude in favour of Councils, whose decisions carry such weight and authority with them as would secure obedience. There is reason to apprehend that if the Council takes such a prominent place amongst us, the boundary lines between us and presbyterian bodies will become fainter and fainter till they at last entirely disappear.

But at the risk of being thus misunderstood, and of losing all that is distinctive in our ecclesiastical polity, we should be constrained to adopt this system, could we be assured that we would thereby approach more nearly to the true ideal of church life, be more closely conformed to the model of primitive churches, and freed from anything that has weakened us in the work of the Lord. And here we are thrown back upon the enquiry as to the New Testament idea of a church. We have been accustomed to restrict the application of the term to a single congregation, except when we would speak of the whole of Christ's followers in their ideal character and relations. The expression, the "Congregational Church of Scotland," would sound strange in the ears of our people, and would, we think, be altogether unlike the general style of Scripture. Mr Batchelor, however, is of opinion that, "We never ought to have allowed the word Church, as applied to the whole denomination, to drop out of use. It is a mistake to restrict its employment to the particular community. Both meanings are apostolical. When referring to the whole body, we should speak of our church rather than our churches." Without arguing this point it is quite clear that with Congregational Independency, the idea of "Churches" must be the dominant one. normal state of things among us must be that of each church managing its own affairs, owing to other churches nothing but love with its appropriate manifestations. We believe in the union of churches, but not in the union which is dependent on outward bonds and formal arrangements. The union of spiritual associations finds its proper type in the tree with its living, organic connection of root, trunk, and branches, rather than in the tub having its parts kept together by hoops. The first churches of Christ were able to exist and thrive, and do their appointed work in the world without Councils as a standing institution.

The

The assembly at Jerusalem whose proceedings are recorded in Acts xv., is referred to by Mr Batchelor as an example of the Advisory Council. Very remarkable are the varied uses which have been made of that famous gathering. Presbyterians find in it the model for their courts of review, Episcopalians for their convocations, while to the Romanist it is the first example of ecumenical Councils, whose decrees bear the impress of Divine authority, and are binding on the whole Christian world. Without going into any minute examination of that unique example of conciliar action, we would only say that, whenever we see a Council which can preface its decrees with, "It seems good to the Holy Ghost and to us," we shall most willingly submit to its determinations. But as the Assembly referred to stands alone, with powers and prerogatives which render imitation impossible, it ought to be left out of consideration in this discussion.

From all that we otherwise read of the Primitive Churches, we are struck by the absence of all formal bonds of connection. We find no trace of any system of delegation, no methods of concerted action, no paper constitutions, no codes of laws and bye-laws for the regulation of church life. If we seek for the model of the relationship of Christians one to another, we shall find it not in the political but in the domestic sphere; the church was a family rather than a kingdom. No doubt all this seemed very loose and imperfect to outside observers. To the politicians of Rome in whom the faculty of organisation was so conspicuous, these churches must indeed have been what Congregational Churches in the present day have often been reproachfully called, a "rope of sand." Yet we know that their union was most real, a union of hearts, a union of efforts tending in one direction which undermined the whole system of Paganism, and built up a fabric of vaster proportions and more durable texture than that which the military and political genius of Rome had reared.

In conclusion, we beg it to be observed that there is nothing in our polity to prohibit any church from having recourse to the counsels of any number of Christian men outside its own membership, whenever occasion may seem to call for it. The principle is not new to us, but has been distinctly recognised by the best writers on Congregationalism (See Wardlaw, Congregational Independency, p. 363), nor is it altogether unknown in practice. The sole question now is, whether this expedient shall, as heretofore, be kept in reserve for emergencies, or raised to the dignity of a standing institution; whether it shall be regarded as wholly exceptional, to be resorted to for the remedying of some abnormal state of things, or as an essential part of our equipment for the accomplishing of our proper work. Mr Batchelor points out some real evils which exist among us, to the cure of which he would apply the institution which he advocates. It is for us to enquire whether these could not be met in. a simpler manner and by less cumbrous machinery.

THE MONUMENTAL LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE OF ASSYRIA.

BY REV. A. F. SIMPSON, M.A., DALKEITH.

FEW subjects of enquiry have, of recent years, excited so great an interest among scholars, as the reading of the cuneiform inscriptions found on the monuments of Chaldæa and Assyria. The cuneiform characters inscribed on many of the extant ruins of Western Asia, had frequently been the object of attention and wonder to European travellers; but until the beginning of the present century, no one had any idea of their meaning or purpose. It is only since the year 1802 that the first beginnings were made, of a process of discovery, which has resulted in the restoration of much valuable knowledge, which had been entirely lost to the world for more than two thousand years. The results of this discovery are of the greatest possible interest to all students of the early history of mankind. They throw much fresh light on the problems of Old Testament history and criticism, and make large additions to our knowledge of the peoples, which, from a very early period, occupied the plains of the Euphrates and Tigris,—their history, manners, and customs, language, mythology, and religion. The cuneiform system of writing, which was used, in these and adjoining regions, by peoples differing from each other in blood and in speech, is not the least remarkable phenomenon which meets the enquirer in this field. It furnishes examples of the greatest possible utility in the Science of Language, and gives proof of the gradual formation and development of a phonetic alphabet from primitive hieroglyphic signs. It supplies apparently the missing link between hieroglyphic and alphabetic writing, an important stage in the progress of humanity. But the story of how the secret of the cuneiform character has been discovered and laid before the world, is also an attractive part of the subject. We cannot but feel interested in the first efforts of discoverers in any field, especially where the difficulties are great, and few helps to be found. Cuneiform decipherment has excited an enthusiasm such as the love of knowledge and discovery alone can evoke. Great labour has been willingly undertaken and sustained with an admirable patience. And an account of the methods which have proved so successful, would form an instructive chapter in the history of inductive science.

Mr George Smith, the keeper of the Assyrian department in the British Museum, has been sent on a new expedition to superintend fresh investigations among Assyrian ruins. The excavations which he conducted during his last visit, chiefly, in the mounds of Koiyundjuk the site of ancient Nineveh, unearthed a great number of inscriptions on brick and terra-cotta, which proved to be very valuable. Besides portions of the royal annals, he came on a copy of the Chaldæan legend of the flood, a translation of which he has published in his book on

"Assyrian Discovery." This legend is undoubtedly a remarkable and valuable Assyrian document, derived by them, in all probability, from the ancient Chaldæans. It agrees in its main features with the Scripture narrative. There is a minuteness of statement, with regard to historical details, which favours the opinion that the people of Chaldæa possessed the primitive traditions of the human race, in their purest form. When Mr. Smith's last visit was rewarded with so valuable a discovery, it is not too much to hope that the near future may greatly add to the treasures already secured, if the efforts of men, like Mr Smith, are adequately sustained by a liberal supply of means. The proprietors of the Daily Telegraph deserve all praise for their resolution to send Mr Smith on a second expedition. It is significant of the influence exercised by the newspaper press of the present day, that Mr Stanley is at present exploring in central Africa, as the commissioner of the New York Herald and Daily Telegraph. The love of knowledge on the part of an appreciative public, has thus become an indirect cause in promoting the progress of discovery.

I propose in the present papers to give a brief sketch of the origin and progress of cuneiform decipherment, with some general remarks on the Assyrian language and literature. No small portion of the Assyrian annals has been already recovered, and translated, and some of the events mentioned in Old Testament history are easily recognized in the Assyrian record. But the time has not yet perhaps arrived for a complete and satisfactory discussion of the bearings of Assyrian chronology on Hebrew history. A general agreement between the two sources with regard to the chief events in the records of both kingdoms for several centuries, could easily be shown; but there are minor discrepancies which may not be cleared off for a while, not perhaps till new discoveries shall place fresh materials at the disposal of the critic. Dr Schrader who has devoted his attention to this part of the subject, has published a work on Assyrian Chronology in its bearings on Hebrew History* and a work by Mr Smith is advertised on the same subject.† A general sketch will, I trust, however, be more acceptable to the reader than an attempt to deal with any of the difficult points. The best sources of information are not generally accessible, no small portion of the literature of the subject consisting in papers read before Societies, chapters and essays in general Histories, and articles in Cyclopædias.

It would not be difficult to sum up the amount of information regarding the ancient empires of Chaldæa and Assyria, that was in the possession of the world before the reading of the inscriptions was begun. The contemporary notices in the old Testament, and the sparse references of Greek writers, constitute the whole. Only fragments of Berosus, the native Chaldæan historian, have been preserved, and handed down in * "Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament." The Assyrian Eponym canon.

the pages of other writers. In the Hebrew history we catch a glimpse of a powerful empire, whose seat was Nineveh, from which mighty kings went forth to conquest in the west. But it is only in so far as they came in contact with the kingdoms of Israel or Judah, that notice is taken of them. Yet the allusions of the sacred historians who describe, and of the prophets who flourished during, the Assyrian period, evince the powerful impression produced by Assyrian greatness. Herodotus relates that the Assyrians had held the "empire of Upper Asia for the space of five hundred and twenty years, when the Medes set the example of revolt from their authority. They took arms for the recovery of their freedom and fought a battle with the Assyrians, in which they behaved with such gallantry, as to shake off the yoke of servitude, and become a free people. Upon their success, the other nations also revolted and regained their independence. Thus the nations over that whole extent of country obtained the blessing of self-government; but they fell again under the sway of kings in the manner I shall now relate." It is not easy to determine the point from which this period of Herodotus is to be reckoned, whether it dates backward from the fall of Nineveh, or from the middle of the eighth century B.C., when the first Assyrian dynasty came to an end. But even with this point made out, we should have been deeply in the dark, regarding the history of the people, for nothing was known of them beyond the vague tradition of their extensive dominion. And it was useless to look for fresh light from classic sources. The ancient authors had been all ransacked, and their references discussed.

The monumental inscriptions, however, remained unread. Possibly the secret of this mighty people was hidden under these strange-looking forms, which were observed on so many of the ruins which abound in Western Asia! But how could their secret be recovered? No one could read them. No language, living or dead, was written in a similar character, and no clue could be found to the meaning of a single sign. They were observed over a great extent of territory, from Persepolis on the one side, as far as Cyprus and Suez on the other. They were found engraved on columns, aud over the doors and windows, on the walls and staircases of temples, on slabs and fragments of stone which might be dug from the rubbish around the foundations. One very remarkable inscription is found at Behistun in Persia. It is engraved on the face of a perpendicular rock, 350 feet from the ground. It has now been deciphered by Sir H. Rawlinson and by him assigned to B.C. 516, the time of Darius. The chief region, however, where most of such inscriptions have been found, is the Mesopotamian valley, and principally along the banks of its two great rivers. They might be seen on the bricks and fragments of ancient buildings which lie scattered on the surface, or had been laid bare by excavations in the mounds in search of treasure. Travellers had frequently called the attention of Europeans to these strange figures.