The Bible, however, still presses the duty of perfect obedience; still insists on perfect holiness, even increases the penalty of disobedience: "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses; of how much sorer punishment suppose ye shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he is sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace." "If ye love me, keep my commandments." And then the perfect simplicity, and reasonableness, and comprehensiveness of the two principles on which all this depends, bears the impress of God. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself." "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

c. The Scripture Representation of God's Character,

It was stated at the outset that the subject assumes some knowledge of God's character from sources independent of the Bible. How much knowledge could thus be obtained? If as much, and as certain knowledge as can be obtained from the Bible, if true, then the truthfulness of the Scripture representations of that character would form no conclusive proof that it was from God, since we might suppose the writers to be philosophers of sufficient wisdom to have deduced their theology from nature, and without revelation. If, however, the Scriptures teach us the character of God far more fully and plainly than we could possibly have learned it from nature, and the Scripture representation not only corresponds with nature's teachings, but explains satisfactorily many questions which could not be answered without a revelation, we derive a very tangible and cogent argument in favor of its Divine origin.

Let us suppose the first hypothesis true, and observe some conclusions to which we are brought. Christian theology would indeed be true, but would be drawn from sources within the reach of all, viz.: the human spirit and external nature. In that case it would be placed on the same level with any other natural science. The theologians who followed the writers of the Bible would use their writings only as aids to

the acquisition of further knowledge from the same source. As the result of such labors, the Bible would soon become obsolete as a text book, and a more modern work take its place, and we should no more use the writings of Moses as a text book in theology, than the works of his Egyptian cotemporaries as text books in Astronomy. We should, on such hypothesis, have the strange phenomenon of a natural science, the most interesting of all, and which has elicited more thought and investigation than any other, nay, than all others, not only making no advance in the ages, but actually retrograding.

Again, those nations which have not the Bible, if we suppose them to have equal natural ability with those which do possess it, and to have had this equal ability in the ages past, would possess as correct and rational views of God as those which have the Scriptures. This would certainly be a fair inference, if they can be sho vn to have given as much attention to theology as the others, and no one will deny that they have. Does this conclusion tally with the known facts of heathen religions?

These, and like these, are the absurd conclusions to which our first hypothesis forces us.

Let us turn to the second. The Bible says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The Bible doctrine, then, is, God, the Creator. It thus solves a problem. which had involved philosophers in endless, hopeless perplexity, and it does it in a single sentence-its first. Reasoning from nature, men could come to no certain knowledge respecting this. The fact asserted, everything tallies with it; we consent to it as true. The how is unexplained, but that does not disturb us, for it is reasonable that it should be unexplained. The Scriptures teach that God is one, yet omnipresent. That frees us from the wretched system of Polytheism. Before, we could not unite these ideas, so apparently contradictory; could not conceive of a being whose mode of existence is so different from ours. The doctrine stated, everything so conforms to this view, that, though the how is still inconceivable, we feel that the solution is correct, it is reasonable. The God of the Bible is infinitely Holy and Just, yet infinitely Merciful.

These attributes are prominently presented, as of most vital interest to man. In the plan of redemption they are exhibited in the strongest light. Acknowledge the truth of that, and we see how "God can be Just, and the Justifier of him who believeth on Christ." There is no appearance of absurdity; the work seems sufficient and perfect, and to harmonize with an elevated view of God, and a correct view of man. Turn to a system of natural religion, or any of the religions of heathen nations, and mark the contrast. Who could be long in deciding where truth lies?

d. The Delineation of the Character of Christ. The writers of the New Testament bring before us one whom they assert to be at the same time a perfect man and God, no god of heathen mythology, with the passions, foibles, weaknesses of men, but the God of the Bible, Creator, Upholder, Disposer of all things, a Being of infinite perfections-no drunken Bacchus, thieving Mercury, or uxorious Jupiter, but the great I AM, the Jehovah. This God-man appears in varied and trying positions, with the rich, the poor, the learned, the unlearned; with friends and foes, in private, in public, with hypocrites, scribes, pharisees, publicans, and sinners, in city and country; now wearied and worn, now active and vigorous, now the people's idol, now their scorn; on the mount of transfiguration, on the cross; questioned, tried, tempted by learned lawyers, by insidious, malignant foes, ay, by the Devil himself, and everywhere He is made to speak out plainly, directly, and often at length upon the common affairs of life and the deep mysteries of God and eternity, yet never do we find His words or actions belie this two-fold character. There is always the perfect man, always the God. Says Dr. Channing, "We observe in Jesus Christ an unparalleled dignity of character and consciousness of greatness, never discovered or approached by any other individual in history, and yet there was blended with it a condescension, loveliness, and unostentatious simplicity which had never before been thought consistent with greatness. In like manner he united an utter superiority to the world, its pleasures and ordinary interests, with suavity of manners, and freedom from austerity. He

joined strong feelings and self-possession, an indignant sensibility to sin, and compassion to the sinner, an intense devotion to his work, and calmness under opposition and ill success, a universal philanthropy and susceptibility to private attachment, the authority which became the Saviour of the world, and the tenderness and gratitude of a son." Such and more, was Christ, yet there are those who would have us believe that this is a mere fancy sketch drawn by fishermen! Who can reply to such men?

We think the claim of the Bible established by the evidence which may be drawn from its unity, its mode of developing its theme, its adaptation to meet the felt wants of mankind, its exalted standard of morality, its representation of God's character, and its delineation of such a character as Christ. We think if the eminent Greek professor who has discussed the mooted Homeric question, is justified in asserting, mainly from internal evidence, that "Homer wrote the Iliad,' the whole Iliad,' and the Iliad' as a whole, and Homer also wrote the Odyssey,'" we with equal reason may say, God is the author of the Old Testament, the author of the whole Old Testament and the Old Testament as a whole, and God is also the author of the New Testament.

6

ART. V.--NINEVEH: THE HISTORIANS AND THE MONUMENTS.*

We do not propose formally to review the works mentioned at the head of our article, but simply to make them a starting point for the discussion of a theme to which one of thern is incidentally, the other entirely devoted. The elaborate work of Rawlinson, of which the third volume has recently

* Ueber den historischen Gewinn aus der Entzifferung der assyrischen Inschriften, von Johannes Brandis. Berlin, 1956.

Rawlinson's Herodotus, in four volumes. Vol. I. London, 1858.

appeared, we hope on its completion to review in extenso. It is interesting both to the general and to the Christian scholar, partly from the results actually arrived at, partly as foreshadowing the altered aspects which our knowledge of antiquity will assume when the hieroglyphics of Egypt, the arrow-headed inscriptions of Persia, and the exhumed monuments of Nineveh, shall be made to utter an articulate and perfectly intelligible testimony. It is impossible to conjecture what vast lacunæ of ancient history-spaces that have stretched as void and desolate across the track of history as the interior of Africa on our maps-may yet be filled up with royal dynasties, and with military and political achievements. We are indeed as yet very far from any such consummation, and it may be questioned whether in the comparatively crude and infantile state of these researches, a work of so large a compass and so high pretension as that of Mr. Rawlinson may not justly be regarded as premature. The seventh essay of the first volume is devoted to an attempt to reconstruct the chronology and history of the Assyrian empire. The pamphlet of Mr. Brandis (who had also previously distinguished himself by some acute investigations in the same direction) gives a brief survey of the historical testimony regarding Nineveh, and then of the manner in which that testimony is affected by the disclosures of the monuments. We propose to follow partly in the same track, and from the works before us (more especially that of Brandis) and other sources, to endeavor to clear up some of the confused and contradictory problems of Assyrian history. We begin with some slight topographical details.

He who sails down the Tigris from Upper Kurdistan toward Mosul and Bagdad, after emerging from the narrow gorges of the southern chain of Taurus, sees at Jerizeh a wide plain opening before him. On the left, indeed, the stream still washes the base of the mountain, and soon after strikes the foot of the spurs of Jebel Zakkho, which, however, retreats gradually from the river, until at Mosul it lies off about five caravan hours to the east. Immediately opposite Mosul he sees on the eastern bank two hills, between which winds the