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

Answ. 1. If [Properly] be spoken de proprio quarto modo, then is Christ properly the Object of neither, that is, he is not the object of either of these Only. 2. But if [properly] be opposed to a tropical, analogical, or any such improper speech, then he is the Object as Lord, both of fear, and faith, and obedience, &c. 3. The deceit that still misleads most men in this point, is in the terms of reduplication, [faith as justifying,] which men that look not through the bark, do swallow without sufficient chewing, and so wrong themselves and others by mere words. Once more therefore understand, that when men distinguish between fides quae justificans, and qua justificans, and say, [Faith which justifieth, accepteth Christ as Head and Lord; but faith as justifying, taketh him only as a Priest.] The very distinction in the later branch of it, [qua justificans.] Is 1. Either palpable false Doctrine. 2. And a mere begging of the Question. 3. Or else co-incident with the other branch, and so contradictory to their assertion. For 1. The common Intent and meaning is, that [Fides quae credit in Christum justificat: And so they suppose that Faith is to be denominated formally [justificans] ab objecto qua objectum: And if this be true, then fides qua fides justificat: For the object is essential to faith in specie. And so in their sense, [fides quae justificans] is but the implication of this false Doctrine, that haec fides in Christum crucifixum qua talis justificat. Which I never yet met with sober Divine that would own when he saw it opened. For the nature and essence of faith, is but its aptitude to the office of justifying, and it is the Covenant or free Gift of God in modo promittendi, that assigneth it its office. The nature of faith is but the Dispositio materiae; but its nearest interest in the effect is as a condition of the Promise performed. 2. But if by the [quâ justificans] any should intend no more then to define the nature materially of that faith which is the condition of Justification, then ⟨p. 265⟩the qua and the qua is all one: and then they contradict their own Assertion, that [fides quâ justificans non recipit Christum ut Dominum.] 3. If the [quâ] should relate to the effect, then it would only express a distinction between Justification and other Benefits, and not between faith and faith.

Answ. 1. If [Properly] be spoken de proprio quarto modo, then is Christ properly the Object of neither, that is, he is not the object of either of these Only. 2. But if [properly] be opposed to a tropical, analogical, or any such improper speech, then he is the Object as Lord, both of fear, and faith, and obedience, &c. 3. The deceit that still misleads most men in this point, is in the terms of reduplication, [faith as justifying,] which men that look not through the bark, do swallow without sufficient chewing, and so wrong themselves and others by meer words. Once more therefore understand, that when men distinguish between fides quae justificans, and qua justificans, and say, [Faith which justifieth, accepteth Christ as Head and Lord; but faith as justifying, taketh him only as a Priest.] The very distinction in the later branch of it, [qua justificans.] Is 1. Either palpable false Doctrine. 2. And a meer begging of the Question. 3. Or else co-incident with the other branch, and so contradictory to their assertion. For 1. The common Intent and meaning is, that [Fides quae credit in Christum justificat: And so they suppose that Faith is to be denominated formally [justificans] ab objecto qua objectum: And if this be true, then fides qua fides justificat: For the object is essential to faith in specie. And so in their sense, [fides quae justificans] is but the implication of this false Doctrine, that haec fides in Christum crucifixum qua talis justificat. Which I never yet met with sober Divine that would own when he saw it opened. For the nature and essence of faith, is but its aptitude to the office of justifying, and it is the Covenant or free Gift of God in modo promittendi, that assigneth it its office. The nature of faith is but the Dispositio materiae; but its nearest interest in the effect is as a condition of the Promise performed. 2. But if by the [quâ justificans] any should intend no more then to define the nature materially of that faith which is the condition of Justification, then