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

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.

But if qua be taken less properly, as denoting only the aptitude of faith to be the condition of Justification, then still the Question is begged. For we say, that as the act of believing in Christs blood-shed hath a special aptitude in one respect, so the act of believing in his Resurrection, Intercession, &c. and receiving him as King, Teacher, &c. hath a special aptitude in other respects, upon which God hath certainly made them the Conditions of our Justification with the other.

But if any should distinguish of the act of faith, and not the Habit, and say that [fides qua credit in Christum ut Regem, justificat, sed non quâ credit in Christum ut Regem] I accept the former as being all that I desire, and grant the latter: But then I say the like of the other act of faith, that [fides quâ credit in Christum satisfacientem non justificat, because fides quà fides, non justificat, sed fides quâ conditio praestita.] And I think I need to say no more for the opening the Fallacy, that this distinction useth to cover.