10. Lastly, If Accepting Christ as Lord-Redeemer, be the Fides quae Justificat, i.e. quae est conditio Justificationis, then it is nearly, strictly and properly the justifying act of faith, as the accepting of Christs Righteousness is: But the Antecedent is granted by all Divines that I have had to do with: Therefore, &c. For the general cheat is by the distinction of Fides quae Justificat (that is, say they, the Accepting of Christ as Saviour and Lord, by a faith disposed to fruitfulness in obedience) and Fides quâ Justificat (and that is the Accepting of Christs Righteousness as our formal Righteousness, say some: Or the Accepting of Christs Righteousness as the meritorious cause of our Righteousness, say others: Or the Accepting of Christ himself as Priest, say others:) Now this Fides [Quâ] either respecteth the mere matter of faith, or it respecteth the formality of the effect, or it respecteth the Formal Reason of faiths interest in the effect, ut medium, vel causa. 1. If [quâ] respect only the matter of faith, then 1. it is an unfit phrase; for [quâ] and [quatenus] are strictly used to express the formal Reason of things. 2. And then the Accepting of Christ as Lord must be the Fides Quâ too: for that is confessed to be materially an act of that faith which justifieth. 2. If [Quâ] respect the formality of the effect, and so the respect of faith to that effect rather then another; then faith is not [justifying] quâ recipit Christum, sed quâ justificat: And so the distinction containeth this truth, That fides quae sanctificat etiam justificat, sed non quâ sanctificat: & è contra. But neither of these can be the sense of them that use this distinction in our case. 3. It must therefore be the former reason of faiths interest in justifying that is expressed by [Quâ:] and then it implieth the begging of the Question, or this false supposition [that Fides quâ fides justificat] I mean not qua fides in genere, but quâ haec fides, viz quae est fiducia in Christum satisfactorem, vel acceptatio Christi. Indeed the term [Accepting] implieth the gift and offer, and the constitution of that acceptance for the condition: But the Act it self is but the Matter apt to be the condition: If Christ had been given (or pardon) absolutely, or on some other condition; then believing in him would not have justified. Therefore fides in Christum quâ talis doth not justify;
10. Lastly, If Accepting Christ as Lord-Redeemer, be the Fides quae Justificat, i.e. quae est conditio Justificationis, then it is neerly, strictly and properly the justifying act of faith, as the accepting of Christs Righteousness is: But the Antecedent is granted by all Divines that I have had to do with: Therefore, &c. For the general cheat is by the distinction of Fides quae Justificat (that is, say they, the Accepting of Christ as Saviour and Lord, by a faith disposed to fruitfulness in obedience) and Fides quâ Justificat (and that is the Accepting of Christs Righteousness as our formal Righteousness, say some: Or the Accepting of Christs Righteousness as the meritorious cause of our Righteousness, say others: Or the Accepting of Christ himself as Priest, say others:) Now this Fides [Quâ] either respecteth the meer matter of faith, or it respecteth the formality of the effect, or it respecteth the Formal Reason of faiths interest in the effect, ut medium, vel causa. 1. If [quâ] respect only the matter of faith, then 1. it is an unfit phrase; for [quâ] and [quatenus] are strictly used to express the formal Reason of things. 2. And then the Accepting of Christ as Lord must be the Fides Quâ too: for that is confessed to be materially an act of that faith which justifieth. 2. If [Quâ] respect the formality of the effect, and so the respect of faith to that effect rather then another; then faith is not [justifying] quâ recipit Christum, sed quâ justificat: And so the distinction containeth this truth, That fides quae sanctificat etiam justificat, sed non quâ sanctificat: & è contra. But neither of these can be the sense of them that use this distinction in our case. 3. It must therefore be the former reason of faiths interest in justifying that is expressed by [Quâ:] and then it implieth the begging of the Question, or this false supposition [that Fides quâ fides justificat] I mean not qua fides in genere, but quâ haec fides, viz quae est fiducia in Christum satisfactorem, vel acceptatio Christi. Indeed the term [Accepting] implieth the gift and offer, and the constitution of that acceptance for the condition: But the Act it self is but the Matter apt to be the condition: If Christ had been given (or pardon) absolutely, or on some other condition; then beleeving in him would not have justified. Therefore fides in Christum quâ talis doth not justifie;
