IV. Having considered the first transgression of Adam, as imputed to all those who descended from him by ordinary generation, we shall proceed to consider, how this doctrine is opposed, by those who are in the contrary way of thinking. _Object. 1._ It is objected, that what is done by one man cannot be imputed to another; for this is contrary to the divine perfections, to the law of nature, and the express words of scripture. It is true, that which is done by us, in our own persons, may be imputed to us, whether it be good or evil. Thus it is said, that Phinehas’s _zeal in executing judgment, by which means the plague was stayed, was counted to him for righteousness_, Psal. cvi. 30, 31. so was Abraham’s _faith_, Rom. iv. 9, 23. Accordingly God approved of these their respective good actions, as what denominated them righteous persons, and placed them to their account, as bestowing on them some rewards accordingly; so, on the other hand, a man’s own sin may be imputed to him, and he may be dealt with as an offender: But to impute the sin committed by one person to another, is to suppose that he has committed that sin which was really committed by another; in which case, the Judge of all the earth would not do right. _Answ._ When we speak of persons being punished for a crime committed by another, as being imputed to them, we understand the word _imputation_ in a forensick sense, and therefore we do not suppose that here is a wrong judgment passed on persons or things, as though the crime were reckoned to have been committed by them; accordingly we do not say, that we committed that sin, which was more immediately committed by Adam. In him it was an actual sin; it is ours, as imputed to us, or as we are punished for it, according to the demerit of the offence, and the tenor of the covenant, in which we were included.