sin or sinfulness of our own is the ground of our condemnation. If we are partakers of the ])enal consequences of Adam's sin only be- cause of the corrupt nature derived by a law of nature from him, then we are justified only on the ground of our own inherent holi- ness derived by a law of grace from Christ. We have thus the doctrine of subjective justification, wliich overthrows the great doctrine of the Reformation, and the great ground of the peace and conHdence of the ])eo])le of God, namely, that a righteousness not within us but wrought out for us, — the righteousness of an- other, even the eternal Son of God, and therefore an infinitely meritorious righteousness, — is the ground of our justification be- fore God. Any doctrine which tends to invalidate or to weaken the Scriptural evidence of this fundamental article of our faith is fraught with evil greater than belongs to it in itself considered. This is the reason why the Reformed theologians so strenuously opposed the doctrine of La Place. They saw and said that on his piinciples the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness antecedent to our santification could not be defended.
The Doctrine founded on a False Principle.
5. Perhaps, however, the most serious objection against the doc- trine of mediate imputation is drawn from the principle on which it rests, and the arguments of its advocates in its support. The great principle insisted upon in support of this doctrine is that one man cannot justlv be punished for the sin of another. If this be so then it is unjust in God to visit the iniquities of the fathers upon their children. Then it was unjust in Christ to declare that the blood of the prophets slain from the beginning should come upon the men of his generation. Then it is unjust that the Jews of the present day, and ever since the crucifixion of our Lord, should be scattered and peeled, according to the predictions of the prophets, for the rejection of the Messiah. Then, also, were the deluge sent in wrath upon the world, and the destruction of Sodom and Go- morrah, and the extermination of the Canaanites, in which thou- sands of children perished innocent of the offences for which those judgments were inflicted, all acts of stupendous injustice. If this jirinciple be sound, then the administration of the divine govern- ment over the world, God's dealings with nations and with the Church, admit of no defence. He has from the beginning and through all time held children responsible for the conduct of parents, included them without their consent in the covenants made with their fathers, and visited upon them the consequences
214 PART II. Cii. ^Tn. — SIN.
of the violations of such covenants of wliich they were not person- ally guilty, as well as bestowed upon them rich blessings secured by the fidelity of their progenitors without anything meritorious on their part. Moreover, if the principle in question be valid, then the whole Scriptural doctrine of sacrifice and expiation is a delu- sion. And then, also, we must adopt the Socinian theory which makes the death of Christ instead of a penal satisfaction for sin, a mere s>Tnbolical inculcation of a truth — a didactic and not an expiatory service. The Reformed theologians of the seventeenth centui^v expressed their deep regret that men professing ortliodoxy should adopt from Pelagianis et Pelagianizantibus, against the doctrine of immediate imputation, " exceptiones " et " objectiones . . . . petitas a Dei justitia et veritate, ab actus et personae Adam- icae singularitate, ex sceleris longe ante nos prjeterito tempore, ex posterum nulla scientia vel consensione in illud, ex non imputatis aliis omnibus factis et fatis Adami, etc.," which had so often been answered in the controversies with the Socinians and Remon- strants.^ It is very clear that if no such constitution can be right- eously established between men, even by God, that one man may justly bear the iniquity of another, then the Bible and Providence become alike unintelligible, and the great doctrines of the Chris- tian faith are overthrown.
The Theory of Propagation.
The theory of those who deny all imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, whether mediate or immediate, and wiio account for the corruption of the race consequent on his apostasy, on the gen- eral law of propagation, that like begets like, differs only in terms from the doctrine of La Place. All he meant by mediate imputa- tion was that the descendants of Adam, derived from him a corrupt nature, have the same moral character, and therefore are adjudged worthy of the same condemnation. This the advocates of the theory just mentioned are willing to admit. Their doctrine there- fore is liable to all the objections which bear against the doctrine of mediate imputation, and therefore does not call forth a separate consideration.
§ 11. Preexistence.
The principle that a man can be justly held responsible or re- garded as guilty only for his own voluntary acts and for their subjective consequences, is so plausible that to many minds it has tlie authority of an intuitive truth. It is, however, so clearly the 1 De Moor, Commentanus in Johannit MarckU Compendium, vol. iii. p 279.