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

Answ. 1. Again, I grant all works excluded: but not in all their relations; nor are all their Interests in Justification excluded. 2. This Argument I should not have expected from you. You confess that by ungodly, is meant such, though Regenerate and holy, that have not an adequate holiness: Adequate; To what? to the Law? or to the constitution of the condition in the Gospel? Marvel not if I deny the Consequence of your Argument, and if I be unable to digest your reason for it. You say, [He that fulfilleth the Condition of Justification, cannot be called ungodly.] But what Condition? I confess he that ⟨p. 108⟩fulfilleth the Laws condition cannot be called ungodly, nor be unjustifiable by that Law. But he that performeth the Gospel-Condition of liberation, may be called ungodly in the sense you now mentioned, that is, unjustifiable immediately for his works by the Law: or one that hath not an holiness adequate to the Law. Though indeed he cannot be called Evangelically ungodly. I suppose you clearly see that your Argument makes as much against any Condition of Justification in us, as against works being the condition. For against faith it self, being any Condition, you may equally argue, [Its the ungodly that are justified: But he that fulfilleth the conditions of Justification, is not to be called ungodly. Ergo, &c.] But if you take ungodliness (as you do) for unadequate holiness (to the Law) I deny your Minor. Can no man but the Perfectly obedient, perform the condition of pardon in the Gospel?

Answ. 1. Again, I grant all works excluded: but not in all their relations; nor are all their Interests in Justification excluded. 2. This Argument I should not have expected from you. You confess that by ungodly, is meant such, though Regenerate and holy, that have not an adequate holiness: Adequate; To what? to the Law? or to the constitution of the condition in the Gospel? Marvel not if I deny the Consequence of your Argument, and if I be unable to digest your reason for it. You say, [He that fulfilleth the Condition of Iustification, cannot be called ungodly.] But what Condition? I confess he that ⟨p. 108⟩fulfilleth the Laws condition cannot be called ungodly, nor be unjustifiable by that Law. But he that performeth the Gospel-Condition of liberation, may be called ungodly in the sense you now mentioned, that is, unjustifiable immediatly for his works by the Law: or one that hath not an holiness adequate to the Law. Though indeed he cannot be called Evangelically ungodly. I suppose you clearly see that your Argument makes as much against any Condition of Justification in us, as against works being the condition. For against faith it self, being any Condition, you may equally argue, [Its the ungodly that are justified: But he that fulfilleth the conditions of Iustification, is not to be called ungodly. Ergo, &c.] But if you take ungodliness (as you do) for unadequate holiness (to the Law) I deny your Minor. Can no man but the Perfectly obedient, perform the condition of pardon in the Gospel?