r; 162, Mr. Goodwin's Arg. againfi Imput. an fwered. C II A P. i z. cation , as being a way to bring us back againe to the old Covenant of works , with a meer pretext of force cafe , as to the Conditions , or Termes. Yet he would prove , that the two Covenants are made one by tis thus , where the parties Covenanting are the fame ; d r the things covenanted for are the Jatne; and the Conditions or agreement the fame , there the Covenant; are every way the fame. But if the Righteoufnefs of the Law imputed to us be the agreement , or Condition of the New Covenant all the three , per fons, things, &Conditions are the fame. A3nf. (i) It may be queflioned, if either the perlons Covenanting, or the things Covenanted for , in both Covenants , be the fame every way; but to fpeak of this is not our prefent purpofe (2) The Covenants do not agree , as to their Conditions ; for the condition required in the Covenant of works , was a proper antecedentcondition , which is a caufe of the thing promifed; but the Condition of the New Covenant is only aconfequent condition , denoting nothing elfe , than a connexion , or order betwixt the thing promifed, & the condition required. (3) The Righteoufnefs of the Law imputed to us , is no condition required of us , in the New Covenant; but it is required of us, that by faith we dole with Chrift , & thereby come to have an Interef± in Chrift , & in all His Righteoufnefs , to all ends and purpofes; which our cafe and necefíity calleth for. (d.) This Righteoufnefs of the Law wascalled for from us , in our own perfons , in the old Cove- nant ; but in the New Covenant , the righteoufnefs is Imputed to us when we beleeve in Him. And this , as is laid , is enough todiftìnguish thefe Covenants. But he thinks. The kighteoufnefr of the Law imputed from another, d? wrought by ourfelver do not much differ , the fubflance being the fame. Anf. Yet this dif- ference may make a fubftantial difference in the two Covenants : for when the Covenant of Works did not admit of the performance of the Conditi- ons by a Surety , as himfelf proved by foure Arguments pag. 155. And the Covenant of Grace holdeth forth juflification only through the Righteouf- nefs of another, imputed to us, & received by faith : Though the Righ- teoufnefs, mentioned in both , confìft in conformity to the fame Law; yet the Covenants cannot but fubftantially differ,as is obvious to ever; one. Be- tide , that the righteoufnefs imputed confifleth in more, than in Obedience to the Law; for it comprehendeth his whole Surety - righteoufnefs; & that took in His Sufferings alto. The following obledtion , which he preoccupi- eth , is purely his owne, & fo I leave ir. Obj. io. Chap. 17. pag.i5â.dre. That for whichIZighteoufnefs is imputed to thofe that belceve, cannot be imputed to them for righteoufnefr. But the Righ- teoufnefs of Chrifl is that , for which righteoufnefs is imputed to thole that beleeve. Ergo. The A jjùtnption he thinks none will deny, but fuch as deny the righ- teoufnefs to be the Meritorious Caufe of that Righteoufnefs or jufIification, which is conferred upon men. The Major he thus proveth If it be Impof- bie , that the thing merited should be the fame thing , with that , which is the Meritorious Caufe thereof, then it is not only not trite, but impolfible, that she R gbteoufnefs ofChrift rlroudd brthe Righteoufnefs of a beleever. But the former is true.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=