22. How is this doctrine of imputation involved in the doc- trine of justification ?
The doctrine of the substitution of Christ in the place of his elect, of the imputation of then sins to him, and of his righteous- ness to them, is the central doctrine of the gospel, involving all that is taught us concerning satisfaction to divine justice, justifi- cation, justifying faith, etc. — See Chap. XXII. and XXVII. , where many clear and copious arguments from the Scriptures are presented to establish this principle of imputation, especially under the head of atonement, its nature.
But in Kom v., 12-19, and 1 Cor. xv., 21, 22, the relation of men to the guilt of Adam's sin is declared to be identical as to principle with that relation which the justified sustain to the righteousness of Christ. The two stand or fall together.
23. What difficulties flow from denying the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity ?
1st. The perversion of the clear testimony of God's word, as above shown.
2d. The perversion of the great doctrine of the atonement.
3d. If we had no probation in Adam, it would follow that every individual member of the human family has been intro- duced into an estate of sin and misery without any probation at alL
4th. All Christians hold that our present condition is in con- sequence of Adam's sin. But if the legal responsibility of Adam's
IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S SIN. 243
sin is not imputed, it would follow that all these consequences have been arbitrarily inflicted without any legal ground whatso- ever. Yet Paul calls these consequences a "condemnation." — Rom. v., 16, 18.
24. How can this doctrine be reconciled ivith the justice of God?
The unquestionable fact is that Adam's sin involved the race in ruin. Whatever difficulty exists in the matter lies there. The doctrine of imputation vindicates the justice of G-od by maintain- ing that all men had a probation under favorable conditions, and that their present suffering has been inflicted according to law.
25. Are men bound to repent of Adam's sin ?
The imputation of Adam's sin to us did not make his sin our act, nor did it convey his moral character, nor the shame or pol- lution of his sin to us, but simply the legal responsibility of it. We can no more repent of Adam's sin, in any other sense than of being sorry for it, than we can feel self-complacent on account of the righteousness of Christ graciously imputed to us.
26. How can this doctrine be reconciled with such passages as Ezek. xviii., 20 ?
The prophet can not mean that no man ever shall bear the iniquity of another, because other texts teach the contrary, (see above, question 20.) His design is to direct the consciences of the people to their own sins, and he asserts merely the general purpose of God with regard to his treatment of the personal sins of individuals in the ordinary relations of life.
27. What is the doctrine of mediate imputation ?
The doctrine we have above presented has been taught in the confessions of all the Reformed and Lutheran churches, by all the reformers and by all theologians of the Augustinian school in the Church of Rome. But Joshua Placseus, a professor of theology in the school at Saumur, in France, in order to defend himself from the adverse judgment of the Synod of France, A. D. 1645, invented the distinction between mediate, or consequent and im- mediate or antecedent imputation. Immediate or antecedent
244
SIN.
imputation is the orthodox doctrine above taught, viz., that the legal responsibility of Adam's sin is imputed to his descendants immediately, and that their inheritance from him of their corrupt natures is in consequence of that imputation. Mediate or conse- quent imputation designates the theory of Placseus, who held that God charges the guilt of Adam's sin upon his posterity only in consequence of that inherent depravity which they inherit by na- tural generation, i. e., we are associated with Adam in his pun- ishment, because we are like him, sinners.
This theory is evidently a virtual, though indirect denial of any imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity whatsoever. If the same penalty which was adjudged to him is adjudged to us only because we are personally depraved, it is plain that the legal re- sponsibility of his sin is not imputed to us, but only our own inherent depravity. Besides this theory, moreover, makes the im- putation of Adam's sin an effect of its own consequence. The truth is, we are abandoned by God, and so become inherently depraved as a part of the penalty of Adam's transgression, other- wise where were the justice of involving us in such a fate ? And, worse than all, this theory of imputation leads by logical neces- sity to the perversion of the doctrine of justification. The analogy is affirmed by God. If Adam's sin is imputed, in consequence of our inherent depravity, we must attain an interest in Christ's righteousness in consequence of our sanctifi cation.