torment although aicov is not necessarily an eternal period as by. Heb. ix, 26. Still the expression "worm that never dies," seems to imply that no redemption is possible.

Dogmatic Discussion of Final Restoration. (anonατάoτασ15,) (ἀποκατάστασις.) 1. Sin is said to arise from weakness; but it arises also from freedom. 2. Final condemnation is said to be opposed to divine justice; but the sin against the Holy Ghost demands condemnation, it is unpardonable. 3. How can divine love condemn;

but love confirms its ethical nature by the first judgment. 4. The power of Christianity can only intercede for those who surrender themselves freely to it. 5. The blessedness of believers would be thus disturbed; but believers are entirely transfused and pervaded by the divine will.

So far as individuals are concerned, the problem remains unsolved by us, (Luke xiii. 23, see Bengel). We only remark that, 1. There is to be a judgment by which God's kingdom will be absolutely perfected.

2. There is no predestined condemnation. It is caused only by persistent impenitence and sin.

3. Men may be eternally punished because freedom may be eternally abused. Man, deprived of freedom, is no longer man.

4. The process of salvation can never become a process of nature; so that rejection of offered grace always remains possible. 5. Blessedness can only exist where holiness is. There is no penitent condemnation, and no unholy blessedness.

§ 83. IV. Eternal Blessedness. Heavenly blessedness is attained in the perfection of the nature of the individual and of the Church. 1 Cor. xv. 24-28, Rev. xxi. 1.

1. Perfection of the world. The old Lutheran view which regarded ý σVνTÉλεiα Tov aivos, as the destruction of the world, is not established by scripture. The burning of the world should rather be regarded as a means of its purification. (1 Cor. vii, 31; Ps. cii, 27,) i. e. an annihilation of all which belongs to the popa and a higher unification of the physical will and the spiritual. Vid. Hamberger, Das Himmlische Leib in Jahrbücher f. d. Theol. 1862.

2. Perfection of the Individual. Matt. xiii, 43; 1 Cor. 2–9; Matt. v, 7; 2 Cor. iii, 18; v, 7; 1 Cor. xiii, 10; Rev. xxi, 20; Heb. vi, 8; 1 Thes. v, 23; Luke xx, 24-36; Rev. v, 3; xiv, 20.

The blessed will be free from sin, will see the face of Christ, and will love him with perfect love. Distinction of sex is no longer known. All is tranquillity, harmony and activity, Luke xix, 13. Each according to his talent, Mat. xix, 28. All limitation of space and time are removed, and all temptations of the flesh cease. Mat. viii, 11; Heb. xii, 23.

3. Perfection of the Church. The Church embraces all holy minds, Eph. iii, 10. By virtue of its union with the God-man, it is also unified with nature, and has power to reveal it. Rom. viii, 11–20. As such a unity the Church is the bride of God (or of Christ). The new Jerusalem, the city of God, Rev. xxi, 14. The Son of God is the light of it. All the multitudes of the justified and perfected saints are vitally united with the bridegroom, Heb. xii, 21; Rev. xxii, 17, and are bound to each other by love, Eph. iv, 3-16. After the conflict which precedes Christ's second advent, the marriage will be celebrated, and the Bridegroom will conduct the Bride home to eternal joy.

Πάντα δὲ δοκιμάζετε, τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε.-1 Thes. v,

21.

ART. V. THE PERSIAN CUNEIFORM INSCRIPTIONS THE KEY TO THE ASSYRIAN.*

By Professor Wm. HENRY GREEN, D.D., Princeton, N. J.

《་ «ད←དོཨཽ༴དྨ«དརK་«།༑༑IKATĪH

KH SHAY AR SH A. KH SH A Ya THI Ya. Va Z Ra

Xerxes

rex

magnus

A««IKK K«n«M KITTI-TE

Ka. KH SH A Ya THI Ya. KHSH A Ya TH I Y

A

NAM. DA Ra Ya Va H U SH. KHSHA Ya TH

F[IK
K=K~{Jt\F K༑F<༤ «!! IT ItX༑«༑༑(-\

I Ya H Y A. PUTRA. Ha KH A Ma N I SH I Ya .
Achæmenides.

filius

Xerxes, the great king, the king of kings, the son of Darius the king, the Achæmenid.

IN a recent notice of the Assyrian Inscriptions (July, 1872) mention was made of the trilingual texts, by the aid of which they were deciphered. These were found on the ruins of Persepolis and on other monuments in Persia, and had early attracted the notice of travelers to the East. The Assyrian is here carved in parallel columns with the ancient Persian and with another language of which less is known than either of the others, but which is supposed to have been the dialect of the Medes. All these are written in different styles of what is now known as the Cuneiform character, a character entirely sui

* Die Altpersischen Keil-Inschriften, im Grundtexte mit Uebersetzung, Grammatik und Glossar von Fr. Spiegel, Leipzig, 1862, 8vo., p. 223.

Les Ecritures Cuneiformes, Exposé des Travaux qui ont préparé la lecture et l'interprétation des inscriptions de la Perse et de l'Assyrie, par M. Joachim Menant. Seconde Edition, Paris, 1864, 8vo. pp. 310.

Commentaire Historique et Philologique du livre d'Esther d'apres la lecture des inscriptions Perses, par Jules Oppert. 8vo. pp. 24. (Extrait des Annales de philosophie Chretienne, Janvier, 1864.)

generis and which appears to stand in no sort of relation to any other species of writing, ancient or modern.

Chaudin, who was twice at Persepolis during his first journey to the East (1665–1670), thus speaks of the inscriptions: "There are only two elements employed in this writing of the ancient Persians. One resembles a carpenter's square; but I can hardly say what the other resembles, unless I liken it to a pyramidal figure. These are not always set in the same direction as our letters are. The first may stand in either of two positions with its angular point downward or crosswise. The second is put in six positions; when perpendicular its apex is directed either down or up; when horizontal it has its head to the left or to the right; when inclined it may point either to one side or to the other. There are simple letters, whose form resembles, as I have said, a triangle or a pyramidal figure. And there are great numbers of composite letters. The primary elements are joined or combined in so many different ways that more than fifty letters may be counted of this description. Some believe the writing to be pure hieroglyphics; but there is no appearance of its being so and I regard it as a veritable writing like our own. And this is all that we can ever know of it. We must ever remain ignorant of all besides, as whether it had vowels, whether it was easy to decipher, and all other particulars."

And the case really seemed as hopeless as Chaudin represents it. Long series of unknown characters were strung together, but without the slightest clue apparently to their meaning. Were they significant at all? and if so, were they phonetic or ideographic? if the former, were they alphabetic or syllabic? did they represent any form of human speech now existing or that ever did exist? and if so, which?

There were some who contended that it was not writing at all and was not intended to be significant. The learned Dr. Hyde, in his Religio Veterum Persarum, affirmed with great confidence that these supposed inscriptions were only a peculiar style of ornamentation in which some artist had exercised his ingenuity to produce the utmost variety of devices by every imaginable combination of the wedge and angle; and consequently any attempt to read them was simply misplaced and fruitless labor. The hypothesis even found an advocate that they were not of

human production at all, but were the erosions of insects burrowing in the stone.

Peter della Valle, who, though not the first to see and mention these inscriptions, was the first to give to Europeans any distinct account of them, had convinced himself by personal inspection on the spot that they contained real writing, and had further sought to determine the direction in which it was to be read. He gives his views on the subject in a letter from Shiraz, dated October 21st, 1621. As he found the angles invariably opening to the right, and the wedges unless placed vertically always pointing to the right, never to the left, he inferred that the direction of the writing was from left to right.

This conclusion, which we now know to be correct, seemed, however, to be set aside by the later statements of Chardin. The most various conjectures were accordingly offered respecting its direction; some assumed that it was read from right to left; others after the Bovorpopisov style of the ancient Greeks reversing its direction in each successive line; others supposed that it was written in columns from top to bottom; others still from bottom to top. Chardin had been misled by legends surrounding the windows, in which the lines were bent out of their usual direction to adapt themselves to this peculiar situation. They accordingly ran up one side, across the top and down the other side, thus placing the characters in unaccustomed positions.

In the attempt to find parallels and analogies some compared the Chinese, others the Hebrew, others still the old Runic letter, but this could lead to no satisfactory result, for no relationship existed in these cases and the comparisons instituted were wholly illusive.

Tradition lent no aid that was of any value in unravelling the mystery. The inhabitants of the region regarded these inscriptions with superstitious awe. In their eyes they were talismanic characters, magical formulas under whose potent spell the builder of these ruined palaces had placed vast treasures which were buried underneath them, and which were guarded furthermore by those grotesque and gigantic sculptures which stood at their charmed portals. Whoever could possess himself of the secret of these mysterious legends, would be able to break the enchantment, uncover the treasures and make them his own.