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

Answ. By this time I am tempted to repent that I meddled with this Brother. If he live to read over a reply or two, he may possibly understand them that he writes against. He will prove that a Legal Righteousness is not necessary, because Christs righteousness (which is it that I called legal) is sufficient. Its sufficient alone: therefore not Necessary. Am not I like to have a fair hand think you of this Disputer? To his Argument once more I distinguish: Evangelical righteousness it twofold. 1. That which the Gospel revealeth and offereth: and this is Christs righteousness, therefore called Evangelical: but also Legal, because it answered the rule of the Law of works, and its ends. 2. That which the Gospel hath made the ⟨p. 278⟩Condition of our part in Christ and his righteousness: and this is Faith it self. Both these are sufficient to Justification: but Faith is neither sufficient, nor is Faith without Christs legal righteousness: And Christ is sufficient Hypothetically, but will not be effectual to our Justification without Faith (and repentance.) But perhaps this Writer means only to show his offence against my naming Christs righteousness legal. If that be so, 1. I have given in my reasons, because there can be no better reason of a name then from the form: and the form of Christs righteousness being relative, even a conformity to the Law of works (and to the peculiar Covenant of redemption,) I thought did sufficiently warrant this name. 2. The rather when I find not only that he is said to fulfil the Law and all righteousness, and be made a curse for us, but also to be righteous with that righteousness, which is denied of us; which can be none but a legal or prolegal righteousness. 3. But yet if the name [Legal] be all, I could easily have given this Brother leave to differ from me about a name without contention, and methinks he might have done the like by me.

Answ. By this time I am tempted to repent that I medled with this Brother. If he live to read over a reply or two, he may possibly understand them that he writes against. He will prove that a Legal Righteousness is not necessary, because Christs righteousness (which is it that I called legal) is sufficient. Its sufficient alone: therefore not Necessary. Am not I like to have a fair hand think you of this Disputer? To his Argument once more I distinguish: Evangelical righteousness it twofold. 1. That which the Gospel revealeth and offereth: and this is Christs righteousness, therefore called Evangelical: but also Legal, because it answered the rule of the Law of works, and its ends. 2. That which the Gospel hath made the