Of justification four disputations clearing and amicably defending the truth against the unnecessary oppositions…

Prop. 12. If Righteousness be denominated from the Precept, Christs Obedience was a perfect legal Righteousness, as having a perfect conformity to the Law: But not so an Evangelical Righteousness: for he gave us in many Laws for the application of his Merits, that he was neither obliged to fulfil, nor capable of it. If Righteousness be denominated from the Promise or premiant part of the Law, Christs righteousness was in some sort the righteousness of the Law of works, (for he merited all the reward of that Law;) But it was principally the righteousness of the special Covenant of Redemption (between the Father and him▪) but not of the Covenant of Grace made with man (he did not repent or obey for pardon and salvation to himself as a Believer;) ⟨p. 264⟩If Righteousness be denominated from the Comminatory or penal part of the Law then Christs sufferings were neither a strictly legal▪ or an Evangelical righteousness. For the Law required the supplicium ipsius delinquentis, and knew no Surety or Substitute. But thus Christs sufferings were a Pro-Legal-righteousness, as being not the fulfilling of the Threatening, but a full Satisfaction to the Law-giver, (which was equivalent) and so a valuable consideration, why the Law should not be fulfilled (by our damnation) but dispensed with (by our pardon) So that the Commination was the cause of Christs sufferings; and he suffered materially the same sort of Death which the Law threatened. But most strictly his sufferings were a Righteous fulfilling his part of the Covenant of Redemption with the Father: But in no propriety were they the fulfilling of the Commination of the Law of Grace, against the Despisers or neglecters of Grace. I mean that proper to the Gospel.

Prop. 12. If Righteousness be denominated from the Precept, Christs Obedience was a perfect legal Righteousness, as having a perfect conformity to the Law: But not so an Evangelical Righteousness: for he gave us in many Laws for the application of his Merits, that he was neither obliged to fulfill, nor capable of it. If Righteousness be denominated from the Promise or premiant part of the Law, Christs righteousness was in some sort the righteousness of the Law of works, (for he merited all the reward of that Law;) But it was principally the righteousness of the special Covenant of Redemption (between the Father and him▪) but not of the Covenant of Grace made with man (he did not repent or obey for pardon and salvation to himself as a Believer;)