by his offence cause Jávaros to come on all without exception, inasmuch as all his race are born destitute of holiness, and in such a state that their passions will, whenever they are moral agents, lead them to sin. All too are heirs of more or less suffering. It is true then, that all suffer on Adam's account; that all are brought under more or less of the sentence of death,' page 227. Of course, a man's being born destitute of holiness, exposed to a certainty of sinning, is not on account of anything in himself. It is not on account of his own sins that this evil (Sávaros) comes upon him; its infliction is antecedent to any act of his own. This is imputation. This is what Professor Stuart says has happened to all the posterity of Adam; although it is precisely what he affirms, page 239, is entirely repugnant to Scripture, in opposition to justice, and to the first principles of moral consciousness.

Again, ‘To say that οἱ πολλοὶ ἀπέθανον διὰ Αδάμ, is not to say, that all have the sentence executed on them in its highest sense (which is contradicted by fact); but it is to say, that in some respect or other, all are involved in it; that, as to more or less of it, all are subjected to it; and that all are exposed to the whole of the evil which death includes,' page 228. We presume, few believe that death in its highest sense, eternal misery, is actually 'executed' on all men, on account of Adam's sin. We readily admit Paul teaches no such doctrine; but, according to Professor Stuart, he does teach that death (penal evil, according to his own subsequent explanation), comes on all men antecedently to any voluntary act of their own.' This is the whole doctrine of imputation. It is but putting this idea into other words, to say, 'that men are regarded and treated as sinners on Adam's account;' for, to be treated as a sinner is to be made subject to the Jávaros threatened against sin. It matters not what this Jávarog is. Professor Stuart himself says, it is 'evil of any kind.' The mere degrees of evil surely do not alter the principle. It never entered any one's mind, that the death threatened against all sin and all sinners, was the same precise form and amount of evil. It is evil of any and every kind consequent upon sin, and differs, in character and amount, in every individual case of its infliction. Taken, therefore, as Professor Stuart explains it, in this general sense, it is mere trifling to maintain that the doctrine of imputation is rejected by one man, who holds that it involves, in a given case, so much suffering, and retained by another who holds it involves either less or more. Zachariae makes it include, in this case, only natural death, and yet avows the doctrine of imputation; Professor Stuart makes it include a thousandfold more, yet says he rejects imputation. According to him, it includes the loss of original righteousness, the certainty of actual sin, and temporal sufferings. Now, these are tremendous evils; viewed in connection with the moral and immortal interests of men, they are inconceivable and infinite. All this evil comes on men, not for any offence of their own, but solely on account of Adam's sin.

"We are at a loss to conceive what Professor Stuart can object to in the common doctrine, that all men are subject to death, i. e. penal

evil, on account of the sin of Adam? Will he say, that it is shocking to think of myriads of men suffering for ever, simply for what one man has done? Happily, we hold no such doctrine. We believe as fully and joyfully as he does, that the grace, which is in Christ Jesus, secures the salvation of all who have no personal sins to answer for. Will he say, that it is inconsistent with the divine goodness and justice, that men should be condemned for the sin of another? But this is his own doctrine, taught too plainly and frequently, to be either mistaken or forgotten. Will he say, I do not hold the penalty to be so severe as you do? Loss of holiness, temporal suffering, certainty of sinning, and a consequent exposure to eternal death-this is a heavier penalty than that which Turrettine supposes to be directly inflicted on account of Adam's sin. Will he further answer, I hold that Christ has more than made up the evils of the fall? For whom? For all who have no personal sins? So say we. Yea, for all who will accept of his grace; so say

we again.

"We would fain hope that no film of prejudice or prepossession is so thick as to prevent the reader from perceiving, that Professor Stuart teaches the doctrine of imputation as fully as any one holds or teaches it; and secondly, that his objections are either founded in misconception, or directed against what he admits to be a doctrine of the Bible. If he is so constituted as to believe, that the evils, above referred to, come upon us on account of the sin of Adam, and yet is horrified at the idea that one man should die for the iniquity of another, we must console ourselves with the conviction, that it is an idiosyncrasy, with which no other man can sympathise.” (Pp. 68–71).

Such inconsistency on the subject of imputation, as is here exposed, is not confined to New England or to the United States. It abounds amongst ourselves. It is not uncommon in this country for men who, through some misapprehension or prejudice, have been led to reject the generally received doctrine of imputation, to yield so far to the force of truth as to make statements, occasionally, which plainly embody the whole substance of what the supporters of the doctrine regard it as implying.

Dr Hodge sums up his exposition of the matter in this way :—

"In reviewing the ground we have now gone over, how simple, natural, and conclusive, is the argument of the apostle, according to the common interpretation; and how forced, incoherent, and contradictory the view Professor Stuart would have us to adopt. Paul tells us, (verse 12), that by one man sin entered into the world, or men were brought to stand in the relation of sinners before God; death, consequently, passed on all, because for the one offence of that one man, all were regarded and treated as sinners. That this is really the case, is plain; because, the execution of the penalty of a law cannot be more extensive than its violation; and, consequently, if all men are subject to penal evils, all are regarded as sinners in the sight of God. This universality in the infliction of penal evil,

cannot be accounted for on the ground of the violation of the law of Moses, since many died before that law was given; nor yet, on account of the more general law written on the heart, since even they die who have never personally sinned at all. We must conclude, therefore, that men are regarded and treated as sinners on account of the sin of Adam.

"He is, therefore, a type of Christ; and yet, the cases are not entirely analogous; for if it be consistent that we should suffer for what Adam did, how much more may we expect to be made happy for what Christ has done. Besides, we are condemned for one sin only on Adam's account, whereas, Christ saves us not only from the evils consequent on that transgression, but from the punishment of our own innumerable offences. Now, if for the offence of one, death thus triumphs over all, how much more shall those who receive the grace of the gospel (not only be saved from evil), but reign in life, through Christ Jesus.

"Wherefore, as on account of the offence of one, the condemnatory sentence has passed on all the descendants of Adam, so on account of the righteousness of one, gratuitous justification comes on all who receive the grace of Christ; for as on account of the disobedience of the one, we are treated as sinners, so on account of the obedience of the other, we are treated as righteous.

"Let it be remarked, that there is not a sentiment (to the best of our knowledge) contained in this general analysis, which has not the sanetion, in one place or other, of Professor Stuart's authority." (Pp. 80-1).

"We have now seen enough to convince the reader of two things: First, that the doctrine of imputation is not touched either by Professor Stuart's exegesis or metaphysics. It is precisely where it was before: And second, that his whole exposition of this passage (Romans v. 12-19), is so inconsistent with itself that it cannot by possibility be correct." (P. 85).

We regret that we have not space to quote any portion of the article upon the question, Is the Church of Rome a part of the visible Church? About ten or twelve years ago the General Assembly of the Old School Presbyterian Church decided, that the Church of Rome is not a part of the visible Church, that consequently Romish baptism is invalid, and that converts from the Church of Rome ought to be rebaptised. Dr Hodge and his colleagues at Princeton, did not approve of this decision, but adhered to the opposite view, which had been held by the Reformers and by the great body of Protestant divines ever since the Reformation. The grounds of their opposition to the deliverance of the General Assembly are set forth in this article. It is characterised by its author's usual ability and thorough knowledge of the subject, and, we are persuaded, fully establishes its leading position. It is to be regretted that the General Assembly of so respectable and influential a body should have ventured to give such a deliverance, in opposition to the whole Protestant Churches and their own most distinguished divines.

We have room now only to express again our profound respect and admiration for Dr Hodge as a theologian, our deep sense of the magnitude of the services he has rendered to the Church of Christ and the cause of sound doctrine, and our earnest desire and hope that he may be long spared to discharge the important public duties to which in providence he has been called, and for the efficient performance of which he has been so richly furnished by the Head of the Church.

X. CRITICAL NOTICES.

The Tent and the Khan. A Journey to Sinai and Palestine. By ROBERT WALTER STEWART, D.D., Leghorn. 8vo, 528 pp.

So many books of travels have been published of late years, on Egypt, the Desert, and Palestine, that we opened this volume with some measure of uneasiness, if not fretfulness. But after giving it a careful and candid perusal, we must certainly own that our misgivings have vanished, and our conviction now is, that Dr Stewart did quite right in giving the results of his observations to the world. He tells us indeed that his journey was undertaken solely "for his own private instruction," but we have to thank those friends who successfully urged him to give to others a share of the benefit he himself derived from an inspection of the interesting regions through which he travelled.

The author is evidently a man who thinks and acts for himself, he has shewn the advantage to be reaped from diverging from the beaten track in every sense, and thereby has given what we think will be a useful guide book to future travellers in the East.

Dr Stewart left Cairo on the 13th January 1854. But previously to his outset he had to make the requisite preparations for a journey through the desert, and on this head he has given some valuable hints at page 5th and onwards, to which we would invite attention. The choice of a dragoman is the main point, but out of the materials you have at Cairo it is not easy to find a good one. With all his caution, Dr S. owns he was not very successful on that head, and the qualified certificate he gave to Shaheen was the occasion of his being rejected at least by one company of travellers in the following year. It would be well if all future certifiers were as faithful.

Apropos about edibles and potables, as all have not the benefit of such friends as the Doctor had at Cairo, we would counsel those who purpose to journey through the desert, or on the Nile, to purchase preserved meats, and such other things as they relish, at home, as they are far cheaper here, and often far better. There is a thing called tea to be got in Cairo, but it is bad, very bad.

We pass over the journey from Cairo to Suez, because it is oft

trodden ground. Our author gives a vivid account of Suez and its environs, and, like all that have gone before him, and probably all that will follow him, briefly states the various opinions that have been broached as to the probable spot where the Israelites crossed the Red Sea. On this quæstio vexata we own ourselves unable to give any decided opinion, farther than to say that the theory that the crossing was on the narrow neck of land above Suez, which is often dry at low water, is, in our view, utterly untenable. In this we cordially agree with Dr Stewart. It is truly melancholy that it should have been left to modern times to broach opinions that are calculated to diminish, if not entirely to do away with, that mighty work which the Lord wrought for his people in the Red Sea. If there was no miracle, there was no signal deliverance, yet the fact is constantly referred to in Scripture as the marvellous work that God did for his people, and by which he redeemed them. We are far from involving the high name of Dr Robinson in this charge, but we think our author gives solid reasons for not adopting the opinion he has advanced on the subject. See pp. 34-38, in which the whole question is discussed.

Leaving Suez, our author now entered on the mountainous desert of Sinai. Before tracing his course, we would venture modestly to hint that the writers of travels in the East would confer a great boon, especially on younger readers, if they used plainer language, or, at any rate, set out by explaining the terms they unavoidably employ in describing. We know well enough what is meant by khan, and wady, and ghebel, but it is no libel on our countrymen to say that many do not; and the consequence is, that, instead of feeling a lively interest in every step that the traveller takes, they soon get weary of his company, and settle down into the notion that the desert of Sinai is, with the exception of a mountain or two, a level sandy region.

In the narrative of the journey from Suez to Feiran, the reader will find some interesting accounts of different tribes and of Arab manners and customs. But by far the most important part is that relating to the writings and inscriptions on the rocks, of which Dr Stewart gives some additional specimens. Of course it is hardly for us to hazard any decided opinion as to the antiquity of these writings, a question that has long engaged, and is still engaging the attention of wise and learned men, and which will probably never be set at rest till a far more extensive and accurate survey has been made over the mountains of Arabia. But from the discovery that Dr Stewart made of hieroglyphics, and of the cartouche of one of the Egyptian kings mixed up with Sinaitic writings, we own that our impressions are all on the side of the antiquity of these inscriptions. The fact that there is confessedly an intermixture of what is evidently more modern, does not in our view at all affect the question. Men will write, because others have written before them. If one of the mixed multitude that accompanied the Israelites out of Egypt sketched the cartouche of one of their kings, that might well be expected to kindle the loyalty of a Russian far from home to record the prayer which Dr Stewart found on the rocks.