same covenant, and are called the New covenant. In the eighth chapter of Hebrews, the apostle gives an explication of them in this sense: They are both equally opposed to the Sinaitic covenant, in their spirit and structure, and both equally succeed it.

In the ancient Jewish harvest there were two feasts, Pentecost and Tabernacles-the feast of first fruits and of ingathering; the one at the beginning of the harvest, and the other at the end; the latter one was peculiarly a feast of joy. The annual feast of pentecost was notoriously typical of the great day of pentecost, when Peter preached, three thousand souls were converted, and the Christian Church established; just as the annual feast of the passover was typical of the great passover to come. There was first the slaying of the lamb, then the eating. The Lamb was slain on Calvary, his people have fed on him by faith ever since, expressive of which they have the supper of the Lord. The death of Jesus is the passover; the continual observance of the supper he instituted is the feast connected with it. The great passover day has been kept; there was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, the Sun of Righteousness set in blood, his creature sun could not behold the sight, nature hid her face in darkness, the earth tore her desecrated bosom and cast out her dead, the car of Jehovah dreadfully departed from between the cherubim, leaving the vail of the temple rent and open behind it, disclosing no longer a holy place. Ever since that day his people have feasted upon him by faith, in gladness and singleness of heart.

The great harvest of the world is now come, and we are in its midst. On that memorable day, when our Saviour discoursed with the woman of Samaria, he said unto his disciples, behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields, for they are white already to harvest. And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal; that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together. And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth; I sent ye to reap that whereon ye

bestowed no labor; Other men labored, and ye are entered into their labor. Patriarchs, prophets and martyrs, labored in all past time; they sowed, but they reaped not; the apostles of the Lord entered into their labors, and reaped that which they had sown; when they shall return laden with their sheaves, their rejoicing shall not be their own; when their feet shall stand upon the mountain slopes beyond the river, they shall strike hands in gladness with them of old time, and sower and reaper shall rejoice together. The very first effort of the apostles, after that they were endued with power from on high, exceeded in its results the lifetime labors of any who had gone before them. It was the first thrusting of the sickle into the harvest; it was the garnering of the first fruits from every nation under heaven; it was the great day of pentecost.

In the same sense the great day of tabernacles is yet to come. When the fullness of the Gentiles shall have come in, then shall the Jews return. Then shall the Spirit of God be poured out upon all flesh. If the first fruits were such a profusion, what must the ingathering be? It will be seen by reference to Jer. xxxi: 34, that this event immediately succeeds or occurs with the giving of this covenant. God's blessing upon the Jews, is therefore the completion and fullness of his blessing upon the Gentiles. The giving of the covenant with Judah and Israel, is the completion and fullness of the Gospel. As the feast of pentecost was held at the beginning of the harvest, so at its end, the feast of tabernacles, that great feast of joy shall be held by all the countless multitudes that shall constitute that wonderful ingathering.

When this shall have come to pass, then the Abrahamic covenant shall be fulfilled, and shall pass away; all the families of the earth shall have been blessed in Abraham. The separation of the Church from the world will cease, for the Church shall be triumphant over the world. The stone cut out of the mountain without hands shall have filled the whole earth.

ART. III.-Imputation.*

PART III.

IMPUTATION AND ORIGINAL SIN.

IN our first Essay the following facts were affirmed: 1. That the Reformed or Calvinistic Church has never attached any importance to the order in which the topics guilt and corruption are stated, in their relation to the doctrine of original sin, and of course never entertained the dogma that inherent corruption is consequent upon immediate imputation; and 2. That it never, in any such sense, admitted the distinction made by Dr. Hodge and Placæus in treating the subject; and 3. That the dogma of immediate imputatation, as presented by Dr. Hodge, never was entertained by the Calvinistic Church, but is, on the contrary, a relic of the old exploded and rejected Supralapsarian scheme. In our second Essay, we have shown that this scheme is, in all its essential features, utterly irreconcilable with both the

* Published with some reference to the Tractates mentioned in the note at the beginning of Essay I, (see Danville Review, Sept., 1861, p. 390.) Through an oversight, we omitted to remark at an earlier stage of the discussion, that if we err in assuming the correctness of the universal impression that Dr. Hodge is the author of the three articles on Imputation, republished from the Princeton Review in vol. 1 of the Princeton Essays, and which he appears to us substantially to admit in the Princeton Review for April and October, 1860, (in his Remarks upon the views of Dr. Baird,) we shall correct the error on being apprized of it. Those essays have greatly enhanced the reputation of Dr. Hodge as a theological writer, and though universally ascribed to his pen, he has never publicly disowned them. A general and very indefinite statement on the subject, like that in his controversy with Dr. Park, can not be thus construed in view of the facts which appear so clearly to indicate the contrary; and there appears to be something very like disingenuousness in that whole statement. Dr. Park had abundant reason to ascribe to Dr. Hodge the four essays which he does ascribe to him; but if he were mistaken, why could not Dr. Hodge have plainly said so? and if he were not mistaken, why attempt, by inuendo, to convey the contrary impression? See pp. 626-628 of Dr. Hodge's "Essays and Reviews," containing his three essays in reply to Dr. Park; and compare the statements in those pages with those contained in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1852, pp. 214–216.

spirit and the theology of Calvinism, and that consequently an intelligent and consistent reception of the Calvinistic system necessitates an utter repudiation of the fundamental principle of Supralapsarianism, not only in the abstract, but in its application likewise to the doctrines both of reprobation and imputation. But here we are met by the perpetually repeated asseveration of Dr. Hodge, that the doctrine of imputation, (that is, antecedent and immediate,) as explained and asserted by himself, is the doctrine of the Reformed Church, as announced in their acknowledged symbols of doctrine, and by the testimony of their leading divines. The issue raised by Dr. Hodge is, therefore, a very plain one, for the question involved therein is one of simple fact, and can be satisfactorily decided by adducing fairly and fully the testimony referred to. This we shall proceed to do, after a few preliminary remarks which are called for in the connection.

As to our own views of the subject, the rules of fair and honorable discussion require that they be stated, since neither Dr. Hodge, nor Dr. Thornwell, nor Dr. Baird, (with each of whom, it seems, the Reformed Church is so unfortunate as to disagree,) has shrunk from the free expression of the doctrine he entertains on the subject. The view we entertain has been elicited, though not fully, in the course of the discussion, and to prevent misapprehension it will be proper to express it more definitely; after which it will be in place to call attention to some of the specific statements of Dr. Hodge in relation to the whole subject, so that our readers, in approaching the testimony we are about to adduce, and in contemplating the long array of witnesses adduced by Dr. Hodge, may be able to do it with a clear perception of the actual and specific and not merely the general issues involved.

While, therefore, we deny utterly that any antecedent or immediate imputation of the culpæ alienæ reus can so constitute the guiltless or innocent creature involuntarily guilty as to render him morally corrupt, and so entitle him justly

to the desert of moral corruption, we affirm that there is a plain and radical difference between the doctrine which teaches that the guilt or sin of Adam was imputed to his posterity, and that which teaches that Adam's posterity were merely involved along with him in the calamities or consequences of the Fall.* The latter doctrine is wholly inconsistent with any just claim to Calvinistic soundness. And in order to place in their true light some of the unfounded imputations of Dr. Hodge against those who have ventured. to dissent from his views, we further affirm that a person may be justly punished for sin of which he is personally not guilty, as in the case of our blessed Lord and Redeemer. In fact, the distinction observed in the typical sacrifices of the Old Testament between the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, (a fact very generally overlooked in the discussion of the subject,) clearly shadows forth the same idea. An offering was appointed for guilt, and another and different offering was appointed for sin. The legal responsibility for sin may therefore rest where the moral corruption and guilt of the personal act do not rest; for otherwise such a distinction in these typical references to our Lord and Redeemer is inconceivable. And hence nothing can be more shallow than the common assumptions against the doctrine of imputation. Grotius, in relation to the satisfaction of Christ, truly says: "Non esse simpliciter injustum aut contra naturam pœnæ ut quis puniatur ab aliena peccata." But these things are, on no account, to be associated with the aforesaid dogma, that an innocent or guiltless creature may be, by antecedent imputation, constituted morally corrupt, and so be made an heir of hell, as the punishment of another's sin, without any consent or concurrence of his own, and without any connection, by participation or otherwise, with that sin. And hence to adduce such considerations in support of that dogma is unfair and absurd.

* See this point illustrated by Weissmann, in his Theologica Institutiones, p. 425, and by Turrettin, vol. 1, pp. 561, 562.

This point is well illustrated in vol. II, pp. 212-216 of Dr. Müller's late work on Sin. De Satisfactione Christi, cap. 4, Opp. tom. IV, p. 312.