DISCUSSION.

Rev. E. B. BIRKS, Vicar of Trumpington, Cambridge.

Ir has been said that we have come to listen to experts, and therefore it is rather difficult for any of us, except those who were called upon beforehand, to address the Congress on this subject, but Canon Tristram has drawn a distinction between historical and topographical research. In topographical research I have no claim to be an expert, not being a traveller; but besides topographical there is historical research. Canon Tristram has said that topographical research has only ended in the confirmation of the truth of Scripture, and we have heard other experts confirming him. He said about chronology and other historic questions, that it was not always so; as yet, this is what we must expect. The more we learn, the more we learn our own ignorance. The more we learn of the uncertainty, not of the statements of Holy Writ, but of the human theories based on those statements, the more we learn of the insufficiency of Holy Scripture to give complete historic knowledge. Till we know more, there will be difficulties in the attempt to imagine the complete outline of the truth, the knowledge of which would reconcile the sundry fragmentary testimonies. As we learn more, we become more conscious of these difficulties. But with regard to historical research, the number of experts need not be so limited as is the case with regard to topographical research. We cannot all travel to the Holy Land and visit the sites for ourselves. But we all have our Bibles, and the first thing requisite in historical research with regard to the Bible, is to be thoroughly familiar with the statements of that Book itself; and those who know their Bible well, are in a better position than those who, in other respects, from their knowledge of other books, would have more claim to the title of experts. We are confirmed in this conclusion by finding that other research continually confirms the truth of Scripture. Those who frame theories in oblivion or disregard of Scripture statements, forget or disregard what is most certain and most important. We have to-day principally been instructed with regard to the Old Testament, but the Bishop of Durham gave a most interesting resume of what has been found out during the past year with regard to the New Testament. We all listened with the greatest interest to the verdict of that expert on the book called "The Teaching of the Apostles." I hope it has been possible for many who are not learned in Greek to make themselves acquainted with that document; and I think the more people study the New Testament, the more they will welcome the discovery of that book. The Bishop of Durham said it pleased nobody; I object to that statement. It pleased me very much, and I think it pleased many others who read it.

The Right Rev. the PRESIDENT.

MR. BIRKS misunderstood the Bishop. He said it was not written to please any party at the time when it was written.

The Rev. E. B. BIRKS.

It was not written to please any party at that time, and it does not please any section of controversialists of the present day, and we could hardly expect that a book of that time would. But in reading it, it is important to remember that, as the Bishop of Durham said, the book does not profess to include the whole of Christian teaching. I would suggest that the book should be considered as a supplement to Gospel teaching. It is intended for those who are already acquainted with the main facts of Gospel history, and believe them; and therefore are desirous of being admitted into the Christian Church. To such it teaches their duties, moral and ecclesiastical. Read the book as a supplement to the Gospel of St. Mark, for those to whom that Gospel was written it was the whole of the New Testament, and if read in that light, I think you will find the book of the utmost interest. For my own part, and I know there are several other scholars who agree with me, I should be inclined to put it between the

years 40 and 50, and to regard it as an attempt of some early Christian at that time to give a faithful report of the teaching of the Apostle Peter. At any rate, it gives a fresh death-blow to the theory that the Christian Church grew up out of a gradual reconciliation of a Jewish party under the twelve Apostles, and a Gentile party under the Apostle Paul. It professes to be the teaching of_the_Lord by the twelve apostles to the Gentiles. The type of Christianity is legal. But of the Jewish law there is no mention. The book gives no certain indication whether it was written before or after the destruction of Jerusalem. The destruction of the temple would make no difference to the possibility of living by its precepts. That tremendous crisis did not alter the nature of the Christian Church. Christianity was the same before it and after it.

The Rev. ISAAC TAYLOR, M.A., Honorary LL.D., Rector of

Settrington.

My name having been mentioned both by Captain Conder and Canon Tristram, in connection with the date of the Siloam inscription, I should be glad to be permitted to say a few words on the subject. Canon Tristram, in his genial way, refers to me as "the veteran and kindly autocrat of alphabets,” and then proceeds to reject, absolutely, the arguments which his so-called autocrat has advanced. Captain Conder, on the other hand, has applied to me no adjectives, complimentary or otherwise, but has paid me the highest compliment in his power by adopting the whole of my conclusions. The point at issue is very simple. Canon Tristram assigns the Siloam inscription, the cardinal monument of Jewish epigraphy, to the reign of Solomon or even of David, at the very commencement of the Jewish monarchy. Captain Conder, on the other hand, altogether rejects this conclusion, and refers the inscription to the reign either of Hezekiah or Manasseh, when the Jewish monarchy was fast drawing to a close. That no intermediate date is possible I fully admit; there is a difference of three centuries between the two possible dates, an interval so great that palæographical science ought to have no difficulty in deciding between them. On grounds purely palæographical, which I will presently explain, I have contended in my recent work on the History of the Alphabet," that the earlier date must be rejected without hesitation. Now what are the arguments by which Canon Tristram meets this conclusion of palæographical science. He urges that Isaiah, writing in the time of Ahaz, the predecessor of Hezekiah, speaks of "the waters of Shiloah that go softly." He argues that "this can only refer to the gently flowing stream through the tunnel of Siloam." "In this case," he continues, "the channel must have already existed, and we can refer it, and the inscription, to no other period anterior to Hezekiah save to that of David and Solomon." This is the sole argument by which Canon Tristram seeks to set aside the conclusions of palæographical science. But the inscription itself effectually disposes of this argument. It informs us that, when the connection was completed between the two portions of the tunnel, “the waters flowed into the Pool," proving that the Pool was in existence before the tunnel was excavated. An explanation is not far to seek. I have no doubt that before the tunnel was made the waters of the Virgin's Pool, which is situated on the exposed eastern flank of the Temple Hill, were conveyed by an open and level aqueduct round the hog's-back ridge, called Ophel, which runs southward from the Temple, and were then brought to the Pool of Siloam within the wall on the western side of Ophel. Through this aqueduct, which ran mainly outside the wall, the waters would "flow softly" in the time of Ahaz. But in time of siege this channel would be liable to be cut off by the enemy, and would also afford the besiegers a sure and much needed supply of water. The construction of the tunnel, and the inscription itself, supply evidence that the tunnel was executed hastily, and not deliberately, as an urgent necessity at a time of approaching siege. Therefore the historical evidence seems to me to point, not to a time of security and peace, such as prevailed during the reign of Solomon, but to a period of expected siege, which can only be the siege in the time of Hezekiah or the siege in the reign of Manasseh. We now come to the palæographical argument, which is overwhelmingly in favour of that later date which, as we have seen, also harmonises best with the historical evidence, and with the probabilities of the case. In my book on the Alphabet, I have discussed the palæographical data at considerable length. The argument hinges on the progressive development of the forms of the letters of the

Semitic alphabet. First, we have from the libraries at Nineveh, a series of dated cuneiform contract tablets, with dockets and signatures in the Semitic alphabet. Certain crucial forms of letters which are found in the Siloam inscription are also found precisely in those tablets from Nineveh which were written during the reign of Manasseh. These transition forms are strictly contemporaneous. To me this argument is conclusive, but it by no means stands alone. The Moabite stone is a monument whose authenticity and date are unquestioned. I make bold to say that the forms of the Siloam letters are decisively later, and not earlier, than those of the Moabite stone. But, happily, we have another monument of Semitic epigraphy, actually going back to the time of Solomon himself, with which the Siloam inscription may be compared. That is the famous Baal-Lebanon inscription, of which you have doubtless heard. A few years ago a peasant of Cyprus, digging in his field, turned up some fragments of brass. He gave them to his children as playthings, some were lost, and the rest were sold to a dealer in old iron, in whose possession they were discovered by M. ClermontGanneau. These fragments, pieced together by M. Renan, prove to be portions of sacred vessels belonging to the temple of Baal-Lebanon, and bear inscriptions stating that the vessels were presented to the temple by a servant of Hiram, the king of the Sidonians. There may have been other kings of the Sidonians named Hiram besides the monarch who was the contemporary of Solomon, but the extremely archaic character of the writing makes it possible for us, with considerable confidence, to attribute this most interesting record to the time of Solomon. This being admitted, we have a standard of comparison by which to date the Siloam inscription; and I have no hesitation in saying, not only that the Siloam forms are the later of the two, but that the development of these forms, as compared with those of the age of Solomon, must have occupied a considerable period, probably some two or three centuries: and I think it would be reasonable to place the Baal-Lebanon forms a century and a half before those of the Moabite stone, while those of the Moabite stone would be separated by a nearly equal period from those exhibited by the Siloam inscription. Believing most firmly in the progressive development of alphabetical forms, an assumption which alone raises palæography to the dignity of a science, I venture to maintain with confidence that it is absolutely necessary to refer the Siloam inscription to the closing years of the Jewish monarchy; and I am strengthened in this belief when I find that the only argument adduced by Canon Tristram, in favour of the Solomonic date, is one that can so easily be shown to have no real validity.

The Right Rev. the President.

I HAVE now to bring this meeting to a close, and I will do so with two remarks. In the first place you will, I think, agree with me that we have had a real treat this afternoon; and in the second place, I think it a matter of profound satisfaction that this meeting, which has been devoted to the hearing of papers in illustration of the Old and New Testaments, has brought together a far larger gathering than any subject which has yet been dealt with.

DRILL HALL,

WEDNESDAY Afternoon, OctOBER IST, 1884.

The Very Rev. the DEAN OF CARLISLE in the Chair.

SUPERVISION AND THE RELATION OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN CONGREGATIONS.

PAPERS.

The Right Rev. the LORD BISHOP OF GIBRALTAR.

UNTIL recent years the superintendence of all English chaplaincies across the seas has rested with the Bishop of London. The arrangement is due to an Order in Council issued in the reign of Charles I. Laud, while Bishop of London, had discovered that chaplains ministering to English factories and regiments at Hamburg and Delft in Holland were in the habit of using a form of worship different from the Liturgy of their mother Church. The story is graphically told by Heylyn in his life of Laud. The Earl of Leicester, who had been sent to negotiate with the King of Denmark, and Anstrother, the ambassador at the Court of the Emperor, had been appointed by Charles to meet at Hamburg, whence they were to be escorted home by the fleet under Admiral Pennington. The English merchants, "driving a great trade" at Hamburg, were allowed by the magistrates "all the privi leges of an English Church;" but according to Heylyn, "they retained nothing of a Church of England, governing themselves wholly by Calvin's platform." The ships not having come, the elders of the Church desire the ambassadors to vouchsafe their presence at the English Church, and to give orders that their chaplains should "exercise in the congregation." The invitation being accepted, the Earl of Leicester's chaplain first mounts the pulpit, and after a short Psalm, "according to the Genevan fashion, betakes himself unto his sermon." The example is followed by Anstrother's chaplain, when it came to his turn. The ships having arrived, and staying for a change of wind, the like courtesy is desired of Admiral Pennington. The admiral replies that he has no chaplain, but that there is in the ship one Doctor Ambrose, his friend and kinsman, who, he doubts not, will readily hearken to the request. The request being made and granted, Ambrose accompanies the admiral to "the place of exercise," and stations himself near the pulpit. The congregation being assembled, and the Psalm nearly finished, a deacon is sent to Ambrose, with a message to begin his sermon. Ambrose desires to be accommodated with a Bible and a Common Prayer Book. The deacon offers him a Bible, but says that they have no such thing as a Common Prayer Book, the Common Prayers not being used in that church. "Why, then," says Ambrose,

"the best is that I have one of my own." Taking the book from his pocket, he reads the sentences and invitation. But he has scarcely begun the Confession, when all the church is in an uproar. The elders again send the deacon to Ambrose, desiring him to ascend the pulpit, and not to trouble them with a service which they were not accustomed to hear. Ambrose answers, that if they be a Church of England, they ought to use the English Liturgy; and that if they will have no prayers, they shall have no sermon; and so he continues the rest of the Liturgy. The message being delivered to the elders, the deacon is sent back the third time, requiring Ambrose to desist from that " unnecessary service." Ambrose thereupon puts the book into his pocket, and leaves the church, the two ambassadors and the admiral following, "to the great honour of himself," remarks Laud's biographer, and "the confusion of the two chaplains, who were thus showed their error in not having done the like."

When the news of this disorderly scene reaches the ears of Laud, he resolves to interfere. But feeling unwilling to take the initiative himself in bringing the matter before the Privy Council, he prepares certain "considerations," and commits them to the charge of the Secretary, who, on March 22nd, 1633, presents them to the Council. On Sunday, August 4th, of the same year, Archbishop Abbot dies; and two days afterwards Laud is appointed his successor. One of Laud's first acts was to procure confirmation for the "considerations" which he had framed at the beginning of the year. We learn from the minutes of the Privy Council, that on the 1st of October, 1633, "The scandal which the merchants at Delph and Hamborough had caused, by using a form of discipline different from that of their mother Church," was fully debated by the Council at Whitehall, the King himself being present. It was "resolved and ordered by the Council that the merchants should not hereafter receave or admitt of any Minister into their Churches in foraigne parts without his Majis knowledge and approbacon of the person. And that the liturgie and discipline now used in the Church of England should be receaved and established there. And that in all things concerning their Church government they should be under the jurisdiction of the Ld. Bp. of London as their Diocessan. For the orderly doing whereof Mr. Attorney Generall is hereby prayed and required to advise and direct such a course as may be most effectuall." Commenting upon this order, Heylyn says that it "contained the sum and substance of those considerations which Laud had offered to the Board;" and though addressed originally to English Churches and regiments in Holland, it was extended “by degrees to all other Foreign parts and plantations." The merchants, he proceeds to notice, " on being made acquainted with the order, with joynt consent made choice of one Beaumont (reputed for a learned, sober, and conformable man) to be Preacher to their Factory residing at Delph-Forbes, a Scot by birth, who formerly had been preacher to the Society, being either dead, or otherwise departed to avoid conformity." Beaumont carries with him instructions from Laud that "he should observe all the orders of the Church of England, as they were preserved in the canons and rubrics of the liturgy; and that if any member of the Factory should shew himself refractory to the ordinances of his Majesty, he should certify the name of any such offender and his offence to the Lord