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

Next, we must understand the members of their Distinction: And sometime they express one branch to be [fides qua justificat] and sometime [fides qua apprehendit Christum satisfacienrem, &c.] As to the former, it cannot be contradistinct from [faith in Christ as Lord,] but from faith as sanctifying, &c. it being but a denominative or virtual distinction of one and the same faith, from the several consequents. And so I easily grant that fides qua justificat, non sanct ficat vel glorificat▪ and so of all the consequents of it. As it is the condition of one, it is not the condition of the other: which is no more, then to say that there is between the consequents Distinctio realis, from whence the antecedent (Really the same) may be denominatively or virtually distinguished: As the same man that goeth before a hundred particular men, hath a hundred distinct Relations to them, as Before them all. The very same condition in a free Gift, may be the condition of many hundred benefits, and accordingly be Relatively and denominatively distinguished; when yet it is as truly the condition of all as of one, and hath equal interest as to the procurement.

And as for the other phrase that [fides qua recipit Christum satisfacientem, justificat,] properly it is false Docrine; if qua signifie the nearest Reason of faiths interest in procuring justification; for then it is but to say that [fides, qua fides, justificat] which is false. The denomination and the description express but the same thing; fides is the denomination; and Receptio Christi is the description: if therefore it justifie qua Receptio Christi, then it justifieth qua fides, that is qua haec fides in specie: which is to ascribe it to the • credere with a witness. And elsewhere ⟨p. 51⟩I have disproved it by many Arguments.