wliich they do not sustain to the sin of Eve is a plain Scriptural fact. We are said to bear the guilt of his sin, but never to bear the guilt of hers. The reason is that Adam was our representa- tive. The covenant v^^as made with him ; just as in after genera- tions the covenant was made with Abraham and not with Sarah. On this ground there is an intelligible reason why the guilt of Adam's sin should be imputed to us, which does not apply to the sin of Eve. But on the realistic theory the reverse is the case. Eve sinned first. Generic humanity as individualized in her, apos- tatized from God, before Adam had offended ; and therefore it was her sin rather than his, or more than his, which ruined our com- mon nature. But such is not the representation of Scripture.
4. The objection urged against the doctrine of mediate imputa- tion, that it is inconsistent with the Apostle's doctrine of justifica- tion, and incompatible with his argument in Rom. v. 12—21, bears with equal force against the realistic theory. What the Apostle teaches, what he most strenuously insists upon, and what is the foundation of every believer's hope, is that we are justified for acts which were not our own ; of which we were not the agents, and the merit of which does not attach to us personally and does not constitute our moral character. This he tells us is analogous to the case of Adam. We were not the agents of his act. His sin was not our sin. Its guilt does not belong to us personally. It is imputed to us as something not our own, a peccatum alienuvi^ and the penalty of it, the forfeiture of the divine favour, the loss of original righteousness, and spiritual death, are its sad consequences. Just as the righteousness of Christ is not our own but is imputed to us, and we have a title in justice on the ground of that righteous- ness, if we accept and trust it, to all the benefits of redemption. This, which is clearly the doctrine of the Apostle and of the Prot- estant churches, the realistic doctrine denies. That is, it denies that the sin of Adam as the sin of another is the ground of our con- demnation ; and in consistency it must also deny (as in fact the great body of Realists do deny) that the righteousness of Christ, as the righteousness of another, is the ground of our justification. What makes this objection the more serious, is that the reasons assigned for denying that Adam's sin, if not our own, can justly be imouted to us, bear with like force against the imputation of a righteousness which is not personally our own. The great princi- ple which is at the foundation of the realistic, as of other flilse theories concerning original sin, is, that a man can be responsible only for his own acts and for his self-acquired character. If this