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

But I wonder at his proof of his Sequel [Because he ⟨p. 276⟩who is ungodly is not legally righteous] what is that to the Question? It is Legal righteousness in Christ that Justification giveth him: Therefore we all suppose he hath it not before: But he is personally Evangelically Righteous as soon as he Believes, so far as to be a true performer of the Condition of Justification; and then in the same instant he receiveth by Justification that Righteousness of Christ which answereth the Law.

Mr. W. If nothing ought to be asserted by us which ever-throws Apostolical writings, then the necessity of a two-fold righteousness ought not to be asserted; But — Ergo. — The Sequel is proved by this Dilemma. Apostolical writings are utterly against a two-fold Righteousness in this work; therefore to assert both these kinds is to overthrow their writings. For to what purpose did Paul dispute against Justification by works of the Law, if the righteousness of Faith were not sufficient? And certainly if both were required as absolutely necessary, it would argue extreme ignorance in Paul if he should not have known it, and as great unfaithfulness if, &c.—

Mr. W. If nothing ought to be asserted by us which ever-throws Apostolical writings, then the necessity of a two-fold righteousness ought not to be asserted; But — Ergo. — The Sequel is proved by this Dilemma. Apostolical writings are utterly against a two-fold Righteousness in this work; therefore to assert both these kinds is to overthrow their writings. For to what purpose did Paul dispute against Justification by works of the Law, if the righteousness of Faith were not sufficient? And certainly if both were required as absolutely necessary, it would argue extream ignorance in Paul if he should not have known it, and as great unfaithfulness if, &c.—