Let it be admitted that Augustine did give this expla- nation of the ground of imputation. Do we reject the doctrine because we reject the reason which he gives to justify and explain it? . . . . It is no special concena of
ours what Augustine held on this point Any man
who holds that there is such an ascription of the sin of Adam to his posteritj' as to be the ground of their bear- ing the punishment of that sin, holds the doctrine of im[)utation, whether he undertakes to justify this impu- tation merely on the ground that we are the children of Adam, or on the principle of representation, or of scien- tia media ; or whether he chooses to philosophize on the nature of unity until he confounds all notions of per- sonal identity, as President Edwards appears to have done."
IV. The question of the imputation of Christ's active obedience to beUevers is very skilfully treated by Wat- son {Theological Institutes, pt. ii, chap, xxiii), himself a believer in the doctrine of imputation in a modified way. We give here a summary of his statement of the sub- ject.
There are three opinions as to imputation.
(I.) The high Calvinistic, or Antinomian scheme, which is, that " Christ's active righteousness is imputed unto us as ours." In answer to this, we say, 1. It is no- where stated in Scripture. 2. The notion here attach- ed to Christ's representing us is wholly gratuitous. 3. There is no weight in the argument that, "as our sins were accoimted his, so his righteousness was accounted ours ;" for our sins were never so accounted Christ's as that he did them. 4. The doctrine involves a fiction and impossibility inconsistent with the divine attributes. 5. The acts of Christ Avere of a loftier character than can be supposed to be capable of being the acts of mere creatures. 6. Finally, and fatally, this doctrine ^ifts the meritorious cause of man's justification from Christ's "obedience unto death" to Christ's active obedience to the precepts of the law.
(II.) The opinion of Calvin himself, and many of his followers, adopted also by some Arminians. It differs from the first in not separating the active from the pas- sive righteousness of Christ, for such a distinction would have been inconsistent with Calvin's notion that justi- fication is simply the remission of siais. This view is adopted, with certain inodi ft cations, by Arminians and Wesley. But there is a slight difference, which arises from the different senses in which the word imputation is used : the Arminian employing it in the sense of ac- counting to the believer the benefit of Christ's right- eousness; the Calvinist, in the sense of reckoning the righteousness of Christ as ours. An examination of the following passages will show that this latter notion has no foundation in Scripture : Psa. xxxii, 1 ; Jer. xxiii, G ; Isa. xlv, 24; Rom. iii, 21, 22; 1 Cor. i, 30; 2 Cor. v, 21; Rom. V, 18, 19. In connection with this last text, it is sometimes attempted to be shoAvn that, as Adam's sin is imputed to his posterity, so Christ's obedience is impu- ted to those that are saved ; but (Goodwin, On Justifi- cation), (1.) The Scripture nowhere affirms either the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, or of the right- eousness of Christ to those that believe. (2.) To imjmte sin, in Scripture phrase, is to charge the guilt of sin upon a man, with a purpose to pmiish him for it. And (3.) as to the imputation of Adam's sin to his postei'ity — if by it is meant simplj' that the guilt of Adam's sin is charged upon his whole posterity, let it pass ; but if the meaning be that all Adam's posterity are made, by this j imputation, yb?-nM7% sinners, then the Scriptures do not justify it.
(III.) The imputation of faith for righteousness, (a.) Proof of this doctrine, v-1. It is expressly taught in Scripture (Rom. iv, 3-24, etc.); nor is faith used in these passages by metonymy for the object of faith, that is, the righteousness of Christ. 2. The testimony of the Church to this doctrine has been uniform from the ear- liest ages — TertulUan, Origen, Justin Martyr, etc., down to the 16th century.
(6.) Explanation of the terms of the proposition that " faith is imputed for righteousness." 1. Righteousness. To be accounted righteous is, in the style of the apostle Paul, to he justified, where there has been personal guilt. 2. Faith. It is not faith generally considered that is imputed to us for righteousness, but faith (trust) in an atonement oifered by another in our behalf. 3. Impu- tation. The non-imputation of sin to a sinner is ex- pressly called " the imputation of righteousness without works;" the imputation of righteousness is, then, the non-punishment or pardon of sin ; and by imputing faith for righteousness, the apostle means precisely the same thing.
(c.) The objections to the doctrine of the imputation of faith for righteousness admit of easy answer. 1. The papists err in taking tlie tenn justification to signify the maliing men morally just. 2. A second objection is, that if believing is imputed for righteousness, then jus- tification is by works, or by somewhat in ourselves. In this objection, the term wo7-l-s is used in an equivocal sense. 3. A third objection is, that this doctrine gives occasion to boasting. But (1.) this objection lies with equal strength against the doctrine of imputed right- eousness. (2.) The faith itself is the gift of God. (3.) The blessings which follow faith are given in respect to the death of Christ. (4.) Paul saj-s that boasting is ex- cluded by the law of faith.