The Scripture Gospel defended, and Christ, grace, and free justification vindicated against the libertines…

Were it the very same Individual Righteousness that Christ hath, Acts, Habits and Formal Relation made in themselves our own accidents, it would follow that we are really perfect in Acts, Habits and Relation, and need neither more Pardon nor increase of Grace, nor should pray for any, nor use means for any, nor are we liable ⟨p. 101⟩to any corrective Penalty, nor to any want of the Spirits help, but have present right to all that is due to a perfect righteous man; with much more such, which is all false.

Yet is it truly and fitly said that Christ is our Righteousness, that is, the purchaser and giver of it; and that he is made of God to us Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification and Redemption, on the same account: Yea though some deny it, his Righteousness may be called the material cause of our Righteousness, as ours is our Jus ad impunttatem & vitam, because it is the matter of it's meritorious cause. For if Adam had merited Life himself, his meritorious Acts and Habits would have been fitly called, the matter of his Righteousness, that is, of the fundamentum Relationis. Yet this is the difference: Adams Right or Relation of Just, would have resulted immediately from his own Acts and Habits compared with the Law; whereas ours resulteth from Christs Merits or Righteousness, not immediately as ours in it self, but mediately as paid for us to God, and the Benefit (of Right and Righteousness) given us by the Covenant, for the said Merit of our Mediator.

Yet is it truly and fitly said that Christ is our Righteousness, that is, the purchaser and giver of it; and that he is made of God to us Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification and Redemption, on the same account: Yea though some deny it, his Righteousness may be called the material cause of our Righteousness, as ours is our Jus ad impunttatem & vitam, because it is the matter of it's meritorious cause. For if Adam had merited Life himself, his meritorious Acts and Habits would have been fitly called, the matter of his Righteousness, that is, of the fundamentum Relationis. Yet this is the difference: Adams Right or Relation of Just, would have resulted immediately from his own Acts and Habits cpared with the Law; whereas ours resulteth from Christs Merits or Righteousness, not immediately as ours in it self, but mediately as paid for us to God, and the Benefit (of Right and Righteousness) given us by the Covenant, for the said Merit of our Mediator.