the forms of the pyramid and this Egyptian or Doric order? And further, why this special form of architecture should arise in Egypt, or the Ionic be of Asiatic origin? So that, instead of affording a solution, the additions of M. Beulé would appear to have only multiplied the difficulties of the problem; for, in recognising the existence of a uniformity of tradition, he has excluded the sophistical expedient of capricious "taste."

Yet who would think that, after all, he still resorts to it himself at last? The Greek architects must have been actuated more by "sentiment," he thinks, than by science. "They curved their edifices even as nature curves the hills and the horizon. These curvilinear imitations of the works of nature give to the Parthenon something life-like and harmonious that impresses us unconsciously. The architect has been so far from aiming to correct our perceptions, that, on the contrary, he must have reckoned on their unsophisticated faithfulness." Here the question is referred, in fact, to the arbitrament of taste, both in relation to the architects and to the spectators. Nor is it rescued from this mysticism by the observation, even were it true, that "the straight line is a geometrical abstraction, never found in nature;" for true art does not consist in reproducing what is found in nature, but in producing what might be found there, but never is; in fact, it is another species of abstraction. But, moreover, it is not true that the straight line is as described. For bodies fall, light moves, crystals form in straight lines: in short, the forces of entire nature, perhaps, tend to realize this line; and if it does not prevail practically, the failure is due but to disturbance. In fact, the first and fundamental law of motion describes this line. We make this response to the standing argument for Hogarth's waving "line of beauty," to which M. Beulé gives no new validity by repetition. As to himself, it is sufficient to refer him to the passage cited, where he says, and very justly, that "the Doric order of architecture, in strict proportion as it grew more perfect, passed from the curve toward the straight line." To extenuate this contradiction it is, however, to be noted, that he appears to allude, in this virtual refuge to the test of taste, less to the vertical than to the horizontal class of curvatures. But he has also declared the latter to be a consequence of the former; a connexion which we invite him to unfold the links of in his next edition. Moreover, while recognising, as we have seen in the foregoing extract, that the pyramidal deflections had been transmitted by tradition, he asserts, instead of canvassing the cause and origin of the tradition, that the motive of its application to the Parthenon was strength and stability: a notion of which even Penrose saw the

incompatibility. In fine, then, M. Beulé has left the difficulty where he found it.

What says the theory above presented, in elucidation of the propylæa, upon this other curious question of philosophical archæology? It has been submitted that the pyramid which marked the tomb of the departed demi-god, was the first monumental structure and the earliest edifice assigned to religion; that it gave formal and material origin, no less than moral, to the temple proper, which, in fact, proceeds from it originally in the character of adjunct; that afterwards a second pyramid was placed at proper distance from the primitive, to constitute an ampler gateway to the enclosure, destined to receive the votaries and the victims; that the obvious exigences of this purpose, as the suspension of the gate and the support of the roofings, would force a change in the receding jambs, such as detruncating both the pyramids, and first inverting the divergence into convergence, to afterwards oscillate, as above indicated, toward the vertical; that then the gate-posts, thus metamorphosed, from their points and angles, to a sort of cylinders, became the column of the Doric order of architecture; that, in fine, the propylæum is but a cumulative repetition, on the one hand, of the square pyramids, to constitute its five door-ways, and, on the other, of the cylindrical, to add its double colonnades. Though every step of this procession be authenticated by surviving samples, which the demurrer would be held in argument to explain otherwise, before being listened to, yet pertinacity against a theory so paradoxical might still find refuge in the ruined, condition of those serial documents, and their obscurity in time and place. But when the Parthenon, that last perfection of the architecture of all antiquity, is demonstrated mathematically to describe a "truncated pyramid," and is thus shown not to have been able, though the refined result of all previous progresses, to quite eliminate this all-pervading and universal type of structure, we have an undeniable fact, more paradoxical than the theory, and which evinces as well as involves it, and that by the most crucial of attestations.

There remains, then, only to give in turn the explanation of this general fact, or, in other terms, the philosophy of the theory, a point left utterly untouched by both the authors mentioned, and, we think, by all others.

It is found jointly in the natures of the type in question and of the human mind. The pyramid is known to school-boys to be the simplest of all figures, and so the easiest for construction as for conception. It must, by consequence, have been spontaneously the earliest mode of architecture to be developed by the mental infancy of heathen primitive humanity. Both these factors of the result are

too self-evident to be insisted on. As to the subsequent progression, it is demonstrable likewise, that it could have been effected only by repetition of the type form, under the mechanical modifications which the complication rendered necessary; just as in geometry, the abstract figures are all complications of, and thus resolvable into, the sole element of the triangle. M. Beulé admires the abstinence, as he regards it, of the Greek architects in keeping, in their grandest structures, to the combination of a few elements; he even attributes the supposed supremacy of Greek art to this reserve. The real elements, we now perceive, were still more few than he imagines, and the reserve, not taste or choice, but narrow necessary impotence. As to the raptures about ancient art, we will content ourselves with asking if such a criticism-still the exclusive one-as that enforced throughout the foregoing pages, can be of authority upon the arts or the ideas of antiquity?

In fine, the principles unfolded will explain also, quite spontaneously, the secondary questions raised by M. Beule's indications; such as the union of the pyramidal inclination with the Doric order, the emigration of this order into Hellas from the Nile, and the derivation, on the other hand, of the Ionic from Asia Minor. The Doric order was the first æsthetical transformation of the pyramid. Both originated on the Nile, because Egyptian architecture is the most indigenous, if not the earliest on the globe. The Ionic, which is simply a refinement of the Doric order, was the product of Assyrian and of Ionian civilisation, just as, afterward, the Corinthian was the contribution of Greece herself, because the circuit describes the sequence of social influence and mental progress. With the Corinthian order closed the simple, angular, and inclined epoch, to which succeeded the Roman composite, and circularity of the dome and arch. And if the Gothic followed this, it was only when the mind of Europe had fallen back into its primitive condition, and thus expressed itself again in the pyramidal architecture. This phenomenon is, then, an admirable testimony to our theory. And the theory also affords an explanation somewhat more rational than the habitual and profound one, that the Gothic spires are meant to point to heaven.

M. Beulé discusses at length, and no doubt learnedly, the famous sculptures both of the Parthenon and other monumental relics of the Acropolis. But for this interesting survey we refer the curious to the work itself. Our special purpose was to offer them what they would probably not have encountered in the books of travels, or of technicalities upon the subject.

ART V.-THE PRINCETON REVIEW ON ARMINIANISM AND GRACE.

THE PRINCETON REVIEW has for many years held a high place among theological journals. It has numbered among its writers several men of liberal culture and of varied knowledge. Its tone has generally been scholarly, and its discussions of controverted points have, in the main, been marked by decorum, as well as by ability. It is, certainly, one of the last journals in which we should have expected an article such as the second in the January number of the Repertory, (for 1856,) entitled "Arminianism and Grace." It is not too much to say of this article, that no man, with even a tolerable knowledge of the history of theology, could have honestly written it. It is such an article as no educated Calvinist, endowed with the sympathies of a Christian, nay, even with the instincts of a gentleman, can read without shame. We say these things more in sorrow than in anger. A few extracts from the article will suffice to show that we have good ground for saying them.

The writer in the Princeton Review professes to "have no desire to wound the feelings of his Arminian brethren." But it is his "settled conviction, that the principles on which Arminians object to Calvinism are utterly subversive of the true doctrines of grace;" and so, he reluctantly undertakes the task of "defending the truth and guarding the people from deception." In this gentle and friendly spirit, he declares that "the publications of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the palladium of Arminianism in this country, abound with bold and unscriptural assertions on this subject; and that Arminianism, in its essential and avowed principles, is subversive of grace." He says of the Methodist preachers* that they come" with their pulpit performances as well as their publications" -"stealthily into quiet and peaceful neighbourhoods, or enter heartily into divided congregations, and glory in the work of making proselytes." He is forced to the "painful conviction that Arminianism is a delusion;" and finds it "mournful to think of so many persons deceived, and deceiving others." He asks, (again with "painful interest,") "Can those who hold the Arminian principles, presented above, preach the Gospel fully? Can they fully present to their

• The writer puts this accusation upon the "Doctrinal Tracts," but it is plain that "Doctrinal Tracts" can exhibit no "pulpit performances." The grammar of the Princeton writer is equal to his logic and his Christian charity.

hearers the God of the Bible, or the Saviour there revealed? ... Is it the Father, Son, and Spirit, revealed in the Scriptures, whom they set forth? Or is it not their own mistaken idea of what that God ought to be, and to do, which is proclaimed ?" Finally, at the end of his article and of his charity, he states the "great practical evil of Methodism to be," as he believes, "the false conversions and the false form of religion which it fosters."

But perhaps the most significant and the most shameful feature of the whole article is the fact that it refers its readers, for information as to the practical working of Methodism, to " Cooke's Centuries," a book so vile and so vulgar, so destitute at once of the spirit of religion and of the dignity of scholarship, that we cannot imagine the possibility of its finding shelter and protection among the theologians of the Princeton Seminary, who have, heretofore, maintained before the world the bearing of scholars and of gentlemen.

That our readers may see the character of the book which the writer in the Princeton Review endorses, we give a few specimens from "Cooke's Centuries;" not, indeed, the worst that might be selected, but quite bad enough to show the evil animus of the unhappy author. We have not space for his ipsissima verba, (except where we use quotation marks,) but our readers may be sure that we cannot state his slanders of Methodism more strongly than he states them himself. According, then, to this veracious “ centurion,” about "nine-tenths" of Methodist conversions are found to be spurious after a longer or shorter trial." (Vol. i, p. 266.) The Methodist "system brings the matter of conversion to God into contempt," and offers "to every one invited to conversion a chance of ten to one that he will be cheated into a disastrous delusion." (Vol. i, p. 269.) It is "a contest to spread over the greatest number of people the pestilence of a spurious conversion, which conducts its victims to irreligion and infidelity." (Vol. ii, p. 132.) It "glories in proselytism as its main accomplishment." (Vol. i, p. 283.) Though "the largest religious denomination in the United States," the "Methodist Church is working more evil than good." (Vol. i, p. 314.) Its "so-called revival operations" are "comic actings;" (vol. i, p. 319;) and its camp-meetings exhibit "hocus-pocus comedies." (Vol. i, p. 330.) It is a "common enemy of Christianity, a great corrupting cause." (Vol. ii, p. 57.) It is "a corrupt and corrupting corporation, and the best interests of religion require that it should cease." (Vol. ii, p. 61.) Its "bishops claim to rule by the grace of God, as really as do the despotic monarchs of Europe;" (vol. ii, p. 63 ;) “every mother's son of the conference is ecclesiastically their bond slave;" each bishop is an absolute despot in the affairs of the Church;" (vol. ii, p. 75;) and