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

So [7. Faith justifieth only as it is a Believing in Christs sacrifice or Righteousness.] Its false both de materia & de ratione formali.

So [8. Faith as Justifying is only a Believing in, or Accepting Christ as our Ransom] Here is darkness, and either nonsense or false doctrine. 1. [As Justifying] signifieth either [as a justifying efficient cause] 2. Or [as the merit or matter of ⟨p. 311⟩our Righteousness.] 3. Or [as the means i. e. condition of our Righteousness, of which Justification is a consequent and final cause.] In the first sense it is every way false. In the second sense it is every way false, speaking of our Universal Righteousness. In the third sense, if spoken laxely de materia, its false, because of the exclusive [Only.] And if spoken de ratione formalivel proxima, 1. Its preposterous to put the Consequent before the Antecedent, if you speak de ordine exequendi: 2. And it is false: For [qua Justificans] speaketh of Justification as the consequent, or as an act, and not of the Nature of Faith it self. And therefore [qua Justificans] faith is nothing (much less that act alone.) For it is not de esse fidei that the term speaks, but of the consequent; So that the [Fides qua justificans est] what ever act you mention, is absurd and unsound: For as non justificat quatenus est, it a non est quatenus Justificat, its Essence being pre-supposed. But if you speak de ordine Intentionis, viz. [Faith as elected a means or condition of Justification is only a Believing in Christs sacrifice.] then Laxly & Materially it would be True, if it were not for the [only.] But because of that it is false, both de materia & de ratione formali. The nature of it is before its Office.

So [8. Faith as Justifying is only a Believing in, or Accepting Christ as our Ransom] Here is darkness, and either nonsence or false doctrine. 1. [As Justifying] signifieth either [as a justifying efficient cause] 2. Or [as the merit or matter of ⟨p. 311⟩our Righteousness.] 3. Or [as the means i. e. condition of our Righteousness, of which Justification is a consequent and final cause.] In the first sense it is every way false. In the second sense it is every way false, speaking of our Universal Righteousness. In the third sense, if spoken laxely de materia, its false, because of the exclusive [Only.] And if spoken de ratione formalivel proxima, 1. Its preposterous to put the Consequent before the Antecedent, if you speak de ordine exequendi: 2. And it is false: For [qua Justificans] speaketh of Justification as the consequent, or as an act, and not of the Nature of Faith it self. And therefore [qua Justificans] faith is nothing (much less that act alone.) For it is not de esse fidei that the term speaks, but of the consequent; So that the [Fides qua justificans est] what ever act you mention, is absurd and unsound: For as non justificat quatenus est, it a non est quatenus Justificat, its Essence being pre-supposed. But if you speak de ordine Intentionis, viz. [Faith as elected a means or condition of Justification is only a Believing in Christs sacrifice.] then Laxely & Materially it would be True, if it were not for the [only.] But because of that it is false, both de materia & de ratione formali. The nature of it is before its Office.