when their progenitor sinned. The very subject, therefore, of the passage, is "imputed sin" in the theological sense of "imputed": and therefore if there be any passage in the Bible from which "impute," in the other sense, ought to be excluded, it is this.

But we have not only to distinguish between ελλογεω and λογιLoual, (whether used transitively as Rom. iv. 6, "Even as David describeth the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works”—λογιζεται δικαιοσυνην χωρις εργων : or intransitively as in Rom. iv. 11, "that righteousness might be imputed unto them also "εις το λογισθηναι και αυτοις την δικαιοσυνην)—λογιζομαι is to be distinguished not only from ελλογέω, but also from λογιζομαι ΕΙΣ, in the sense in which λογίζομαι ΕΙΣ is used in the fourth of Romans. I say as used in the fourth of Romans, because in determining the specific meaning of words, we have to consider not merely what they may mean in other combinations, but what they mean as limited and defined by the context in which they occur. Both in the second and fourth of Romans, doyouat in combination with EIZ, is evidently used to denote the assigning to a thing a value which intrinsically it has not. Thus in Rom. ii., "Shall not his uncircumcision be counted FOR circumcision?” ουχι ἡ ακροβυστία αυτου εις περιτομην λογισθήσεται); and in Rom. iv., "His faith is counted FOR righteousness" (AoyileTAL ἡ πίστις αυτού εις δικαιοσυνην—that is, faith has assigned to it a value which intrinsically it has not, for our faith is not in itself righteousness. It is neither perfect in its development, nor meritorious; nor is it regarded as a work at all, but on the contrary, is contrasted with works-"to him that worketh not, but believeth."

If I were to endow another with ten thousand talents of gold, and were to give him, in proof of his being so endowed, a legally stamped document that document would become possessed of a conventional value, and might be reckoned to me for the value of the talents which it denoted; but it would have no intrinsic value. In such a case I should use the expression λoyiloμaι EIZ. So is it with faith. It is not, as Romanists and others have said, righteousness. It has only an assigned value: whereas, Christ's righteousness which it represents, and on account of which it has its assigned value, has a real, absolute, value. It is as the true gold, whereas faith is only as the stamped document. Consequently, I say faith is imputed to me for righteousness; but of Christ's righteousness I say, it is imputed to me as righteousness. Faith imputed for righteousness, and the

M

righteousness of Christ imputed as righteousness, are distinct, although inseparably connected doctrines. The first is treated of in the fourth of the Romans: the second in the fifth chapter. There it is that we find that clear, full, unambiguous, statement: "As by the disobedience of one man, many were constituted sinners, so by the obedience of one, shall many be constituted righteous."

"Constituted" ("constituti sunt "-the translation adopted by the chief Latin versions)* may be regarded as a forensic word. If the law appoints that the guilt of a representative person should be considered to attach to those who are represented by that person, then they so rendered guilty are said "to be constituted" sinners. "To be made" sinners, which is the translation adopted for кalioraola in our version, is ambiguous. It might mean the being made sinful or corrupt, and so it is understood by many. But depravation of nature, which is one consequence of Adam's sin, must be distinguished from imputed sin, which is another consequence of Adam's sin, and it is of the latter that this verse in the Romans treats. Dr. Owen, with his usual accuracy, marks very clearly the distinction. Speaking of the text"by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin," &c., he observes: "It is hence manifest what sin it is that the Apostle intends, namely, the actual sin of Adam-the one sin of that common person while he was so. For although the corruption and depravation of our nature doth necessarily ensue thereon, in every one that is brought forth actually in the world by natural generation, yet it is the guilt of Adam's actual sin alone, that rendered them all obnoxious unto death upon the first entrance of sin into the world."-Owen on Justification, p. 399. All the natural descendants of Adam, therefore, are under condemnation because Adam their federal head sinned. Adam's sin imputed, apart from the resulting corruption of our nature, is that which "constitutes" us sinners. Just so the righteousness of our new federal Head, apart from the new principle of righteousness and life that is, as a necessary concomitant, created in us, "constitutes" us righteous.

This truth respecting the imputation of Adam's sin is taught no less plainly in the 12th verse. "Wherefore, as by one man, sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death penetrated (Sinλ0e) unto all men, on the ground that (p) all sinned." (μaprov).

*See for example, Vulgate, Codex Amiatinus, Junius, & Calvin.

The Apostle does not say "on the ground that all have been made corrupt," but on the ground that all sinned, (μaprov) that is, when their head and representative sinned.*

It is exceedingly important to maintain the doctrine of Imputed Sin thus for it and the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness stand or full together. They who reject the one cannot consistently own the other. As death reaches us on the ground of one man's sin, so life comes on the ground of one man's righteousness. Other results there may be, and are, both of Adam's sin, and of Christ's righteousness: but death did not reach us because of such results of Adam's sin, but because of the sin: nor does life reach us because of such results of Christ's righteousness, but because of the finished righteousness itself.

If we were to teach otherwise and were to say that death reached us not merely because of Adam's sin imputed, but also because of the corruption of our nature; then we should have to say that we are constituted righteous, not merely by Christ's obedience, but also by infused righteousness: and we should at once slide into the pitfall of Romanist falsehood. Let us therefore carefully distinguish on the one hand, Imputed Sin-imparted corruption-and actual transgression on the other, Imputed Righteousness-the creation of the new man within us-and resulting fruits of righteousness. If "Imputed Sin" brings us under condemnation and death, "Imputed Righteousness" brings us unto justification of life.

The expression sp, which I have translated "on the ground that" (on the ground that all have sinned) is, like "justification," a forensic term-the thought of relation to the judicial courts of God being maintained throughout all the doctrinal part of the Epistle to the Romans. Ep' is an expression found in treaties and legal documents. If it be used of a stipulation respecting the future it is to be rendered "on condition that," as when we say, we agree to do so and so, on condition that you will do so and so." Several examples of this will be found in Herodotus and Thucydides. Thus Thucyd. iv. 30—σφας αυτους κελευειν παραδούναι εφ' ω, “ to bid them deliver themselves up on condition that," &c. But if ep w or p or be used as in the present case with reference to a past

* The reference of the aorist, in dependent or relative clauses, is to the point of time fixed in the leading clause that precedes, Here that point is, the moment when Adam sinned.

"

event from which certain consequences have resulted, then it is to be translated on the ground that.” Εμε μηδεν εχεις εφ' ότῳ τουτο ποιήσεις as respects me, you have no ground on which to treat me thus." Lucian. The truth that death penetrated to all men not because of their own personal sin, but because of Adam's sin, is proved by the Apostle in the verses that succeed. They are as follows:

"For until the Law sin was in the world."] That is although sin up to the time the Law was given, was not manifested under the same circumstances as afterwards; yet it existed, and was manifested in various ways. Consequently, it cannot be said that the Law was the cause, or the occasion of the sin that entailed death, because such sin existed before the Law was given.

“But sin is not set down in the account if there be not a law."] That is, sin, in the sense of personal transgression, is not set down in the book of God against any who have not broken some commandment which they either did recognise or should have recognised. This, of course, is the case with infants, and irresponsible persons (such as idiots) only. They break no recognised commandment: they know neither the law nor a law. Consequently, nothing is registered against them in that page of the book of account on which personal transgression is registered. Nevertheless they die. They became subject to death, long before the Law, which pronounced its formal curse on sin, was given. "Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression," i.e., by breaking a recognised commandment. If, therefore, no personally committed sin was registered against them, they could not have died on that account, but must have died on the ground of another's sin having been imputed to them. Thus the Apostle's previous assertion is proved.

It is certain that all infants who die in irresponsible infancy are chosen in Christ, and through His grace, saved: for we find as a description universally pertaining to all who shall finally stand before the great white throne and be condemned, that they are to be judged "out of things which were written in the books according to their works." This is a description which cannot apply to those who have died in irresponsible infancy.

Falsification of the meaning of "Justify" at the

Council of Trent.

Few things afford a more sorrowful proof of human corruption, than when; for the sake of retaining influence over the careless or ignorant, men employ arguments which they and all others who are intelligent, know to be deceiving. Yet the history both of the Romanist and Socinian controversies supplies many a sad example of this. At the Council of Trent, the Romanist disputants were not deficient in intelligence. It is impossible therefore to conceive that they could have been unconscious of the futility of one of the chief arguments employed by them to subvert the doctrine of Justification by grace through faith.

To define aright the meaning of the word "justify" is evidently of essential moment in this all-important controversy. Accordingly, the Reformers most properly drew their definition of "justify" from such texts as these-"It is God that justifieth; who is he that condemneth?"-rightly arguing that "justify" was a judicial or forensic word, implying the functions of a judge-that it was opposed to "condemn," and meant "to pronounce righteous." For the Romanists to have admitted this, would have been to subvert the whole system of their doctrine; and therefore they controverted it with all their vigour asserting that "justify," meant not to pronounce righteous, but to make righteous.

The argument which they condescended to use in order to prove this assertion was this. In the Latin translation of the Bible they found the word "justifico" used as the translation of the Hebrew and Greek words which signify "to justify": and they said that as vivifico, means, to make alive, and califacio, to make warm, so justifico means, to make righteous.

Now supposing it were true that the Latin word "justifico" was intended by the translator to signify a making righteous, what would