and a difficulty not to be escaped by those who, as apparently Dr. Fiske would do, think they have explained the mystery by attributing the condemnation of each not to Adam, but to the sin which commences with the earliest dawn of personal responsibility in each individual. The fact is, the constitution of our nature is such, and the circumstances in which we are placed, that no mere man ever yet was found, nay, we can with certainty affirm, ever will be found, who "liveth and sinneth not." Now what human parent would dare to expose his children to such irresistible temptation and certainty of pollution? And, if we were to presume to judge of God by man's standard, it is as inexplicable and as hard to justify God's placing all men in circumstances such that they will with moral certainty transgress and bring upon themselves death, as that God should take the first man as a representative of all and start his posterity as it were a stage in advance, already partakers of condemnation and sin which they have to confess, but with an Almighty Saviour revealed to them, and every means, for their overcoming sin and attaining finally to salvation, provided for them, which they merely have submissively and gratefully to receive and improve.

The justification then, I repeat, of God's procedure in holding all men as condemned, not for what they themselves have done, but for Adam's offence, St. Paul does not attempt (leaving it to God in a future world to clear up this mystery), but takes the fact merely as he finds it, and employs it to illustrate, and to commend to the acceptance specially of the Jewish zealots for the law, the analogous proceeding of God's justifying believers not for what they themselves have done, but solely on the ground of Christ's merits.

But though it is not given us here below to attain to a full understanding of all the ways of God, is it no satisfaction -no "vindication" of the truthfulness and propriety of God's sentence- to be permitted to see that we are not condemned without being at the same time sinful? Nay, is it not some explanation of God's treatment of us, that it is

in accordance with a general "law of nature"? We consider that we have sufficiently explained the fall of an apple, or the maintenance of the earth in its orbit, if we refer them to the general law of gravitation, though we know nothing of the cause of gravitation itself. Now it is a general law established by God that "like produces like," and that the offspring partakes in the qualities and fortunes of the parent. Suppose then a vine to have become corrupt, and its fruit corrupt, and that the owner of the vineyard gave command to extirpate not only the parent tree, but every slip taken from it. Should the gardener remonstrate, "Why condemn all for the sake of one, before they have time to show what their fruit would be?" Would it be no vindication to reply, "All partake of the taint of the parent stem, and are therefore properly condemned?"

Or, to take the case of human beings. Suppose it were a fact, as universal as the inherited corruption of all Adam's posterity, that in a community of Thugs every child had invariably and without exception turned out a murderer, would not the government be sufficiently justified in (what our government, without such universal experience, virtually did) sentencing all, children as well as parents, to be consigned to a penal colony and reformatory discipline in which every possible means would be employed for their amelioration, with the final condemnation of utter extermination awaiting all, who, after every means of reformation had been exhausted, failed to give any satisfactory proofs of amendment?

Dr. Fiske, however, can see no distinction between Dr. Hodge's view which represents God on account of Adam's transgression as adjudging sin as a penal infliction on all his posterity while yet guiltless" before even the existence of inherent depravity in them" (which to me appeared to make God the direct author of sin) and the view which I have propounded, that St. Paul represents it as some vindication of the condemnation passed by God on all Adam's posterity, that "by a necessity of nature" (that which is born of flesh

being flesh) they partake of his sinfulness and therefore of his condemnation. "How," he asks, "is God any more the author of sin, on the theory that inherent depravity comes upon the race as a 'judicial infliction,' than he is on the theory that it comes by a necessity of nature,' or by 'a natural law which God has established'? And how is it any more arbitrary' to condemn men for the sin of Adam to the most dreadful of all evils [sin], than it is to oblige them, on account of Adam's sin, to begin existence with a sinful nature, which is certainly one of the most dreadful of all evils?"

To make clear the distinction between Dr. Hodge's view and mine, let us change slightly our illustration. An eastern monarch in the course of visiting his dominions, having some meat placed before him which was found to be diseased and poisonous, issued an order commanding the whole flocks of the district to be killed. The first account propagated of this proceeding represented the monarch as acting in a most arbitrary manner, condemning all the undeserving flocks "before the existence of any inherent corruption in them;" and though, indeed, on examination they were found to be diseased, yet this very disease, it appeared, had been caused by the king himself, who was possessed of a mysterious power, pronouncing a curse upon them all, and with malignant eye casting such a blight upon them, that all became corrupted and their flesh poisonous—the king himself being thus the real and direct author of the distemper. Widely different, however, was the estimation formed by his subjects both of the proceeding and of the character of the king, when they learned that the flocks were all the offspring of one original pair of diseased sheep that had been imported into the district, and that by no special influence of the monarch, but according to a "general law" and "necessity of nature" the descendants inherited the disease of the parents. The king's condemnatory sentence, passed upon all the flocks, was at once vindicated in their eyes, and, instead of appearing a mere wanton exercise of authority, seemed

to be necessarily called for by the circumstances, and a benevolent means calculated to check as far as possible the wider spread of the malady.

The other minor charges of inconsistency alleged by Dr. Fiske are of a similar character, and admit of a similar reply. I must confess that the examination of these objections, if I may assume, from the acuteness of Dr. Fiske's mind, that they are among the strongest that can be adduced against my views, has tended rather to strengthen my belief in the general correctness of my interpretation. I could have wished much that Dr. Fiske had indicated more clearly his own solution of the difficulties which surround this perplexing portion of St. Paul's Epistle, instead of confining himself mostly to stating objections to mine. Evidently he believes that the "New England theology," towards which he considers that I am darkly groping my way, offers such a solution, and leads to a more "consistent Calvinism." He will confer on me a great favor, if he will point me to the work which he thinks best calculated to give me the new light which I require on this subject.

ARTICLE VII.

PERKINS'S TUSCAN SCULPTORS.1

THESE superb and costly volumes are excellent in paper, type, and embellishment, affording constant pleasure to a reader's taste. Many of the engravings are wonderful for their delicacy of outline, and for the insight they give into the works of art which they illustrate. They leave a definite and lasting impression. That of St. Cecilia by Donatello, and the Creation by Ghiberti, in the first volume, are exquisite in beauty. The biographies are many of them very interesting and instructive, presenting striking examples of the unwearied and patient industry of men of the greatest genius. The style is very precise and elegant; the words used in the description being so exact and fitting that any change would often obscure the meaning. The author has taken great pains in studying his subject, and the reader has the satisfaction of perusing the words of a master fully qualified to give instruction.

Our clerical students cannot fail to be interested in the record which these volumes give of the labors performed and the sufferings endured by the great artists of Tuscany. The writer of sermons is apt to imagine, that he is the only man who lives a life of unrequited toil. The perusal of Mr. Perkins's narratives illustrates the fact that the lofty genius and exquisite taste of artists have prompted them to arduous work, and have borne them so far above the standard of their age as to deprive them of the reward which was their due.

The following are a few specimens of the suggestive records with which these volumes abound. They are presented for the most part, although not exactly, in the words of Mr. Perkins.

Niccola Pisano and the Pisan pulpit. It was during the eleventh century, when Pisa was chief among the Ghibelline cities of Europe and a seaport, that the lonely buildings which now from its principal attraction were erected. We must look to a still earlier period for her antique sarcophagi which line the corridors of her Campo Santo, and which doubtless were in her possession when she was a colony of imperial Rome; while others were brought from the East, Sicily, and various parts of Italy, during the Middle Ages. When these sarcophagi decorated the exterior

1 Tuscan Sculptors, their Lives, Works, and Times; with Illustrations from Original Drawings and Photographs. By Charles C. Perkins. Two vols. royal octavo. pp. 267, 267. London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, and Green. 1864. Price, $22.50.