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

And first, We must understand what it is that is distinguished: whether the Habit of faith, or the Acts? As far as I am able to understand them, they that understand themselves, do intend to distinguish of the Habit by a virtual distinction, and their meaning is [The Habit of Faith which produceth both these acts doth justify: but not as it produceth the act of believing in Christ as Lord, Teacher, &c. but as it produceth the Act of believing in his blood] that is, [The habit is the remote cause, and the act is the nearer cause; and the habit justifieth by this Act, and not by the other.] I verily think this is their meaning; I am sure this is the most probable and rational that I can imagine. But then first, This contradicteth their ordinary assertion, that it is not the Habit of faith, but the act by which we are justified. Secondly, Then they do not mean that the act of believing in Christ as Lord, &c. is so much as the fides qua, which if they will speak out and make no more ado, the controversy will be much better understood. For then it is a question that's easily apprehended, Whether only the act of faith in Christs satisfaction do justify, or the believing in Christ as King, Priest and Prophet, or all that is essential to Christian faith] This is a plain case; which fides qua and qua do not illustrate.

And first, We must understand what it is that is distinguished: whether the Habit of faith, or the Acts? As far as I am able to understand them, they that understand themselves, do intend to distinguish of the Habit by a virtual distinction, and their meaning is [The Habit of Faith which produceth both these acts doth justifie: but not as it produceth the act of believing in Christ as Lord, Teacher, &c. but as it produceth the Act of believing in his blood] that is, [The habit is the remote cause, and the act is the nearer cause; and the habit justifieth by this Act, and not by the other.] I verily think this is their meaning; I am sure this is the most probable and rational that I can imagine. But then first, This contradicteth their ordinary assertion, that it is not the Habit of faith, but the act by which we are justified. Secondly, Then they do not mean that the act of believing in Christ as Lord, &c. is so much as the fides qua, which if they will speak out and make no more ado, the controversie will be much better understood. For then it is a question thats easily apprehended, Whether only the act of faith in Christs satisfaction do justifie, or the believing in Christ as King, Priest and Prophet, or all that is essential to Christian faith] This is a plain case; which fides qua and qua do not illustrate.