This essay demonstrates that the reference, in Q 60 of the Heidelberg Catechism, to Christ’s satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness does not embrace Beza’s twofold imputation but the Reformers’ repetitive concept of imputation that implies Christ’s subjection to the law of creation and the twofold eternal life, so that the Catechism implicitly teaches the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ (hereinafter IAOC). Compared to the previous studies, which have the disadvantages of applying Beza’s twofold imputation or Pareus’s repetitive interpretation to HC 60, this essay examines whether the Catechism might support or deny the IAOC with a significant consideration of the robust evidence both in the Catechism itself and in the sixteenth-century historical context. In conclusion, the Catechism, though not employing Beza’s twofold imputation, embraces both Christ’s subjection to the law of creation and the twofold eternal life supported by other Reformers, so that it entails and affirms the IAOC in its own moderate and systematic manner of the sixteenth-century historical context.

这篇文章表明，在海德堡要理问答Q 60 中，对基督的满足、公义和圣洁的引用并不包含 Beza 的双重归算，而是改教家重复的归责概念，这意味着基督服从创造法则和双重永恒生活，因此教理问答含蓄地教导基督主动服从的归责（以下简称IAOC）。与以往的研究相比，这些研究存在将 Beza 的双重归责或 Pareus 的重复解释应用于HC  60的缺点，本文探讨了教理问答是否可能支持或否定IAOC认真考虑了教理问答本身和 16 世纪历史背景中的有力证据。总而言之，教理问答虽然没有采用 Beza 的双重归责，但包含基督对创造律的服从和其他改革者支持的双重永生，因此它以自己的温和和系统的方式包含和肯定了IAOC ——世纪历史脉络。