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

By your Arguments in your Preface, I perceive you think it a matter of very great moment to your cause, to prove that there are divers acts of Faith, whereas I am so far from denying it, that I am ready to demonstrate, that even the faith by which we are Justified, is liker to have twenty acts then one only, but many certainly it hath. Your first Argument is, from the different objects because the Objects specify the Acts. A sufficient Argument which no man can confute. But 1. This is no proof, that one act only is it that we are justified by. 2. Where you add that Justifying Faith hath not respect to Christ as Lord formaliter, you beg the Question, and assert no light mistake. But where you add [in its act of Justifying] you do but obtrude upon us your fundamental Error (which leadeth you to the rest) by naked affirmations. Faith hath properly no justifying act: Justificare est efficere, Faith doth not effect our Justification: we are justified by faith indeed, but not as by an efficient cause unless you will take Justification for Sanctification; For real qualitative Mutations it doth effect; but the Jus or Title to any mercy in the world it cannot Effect, but Accept when offered. If you ••n• see so plain a Truth in its Evidence, yet observe by the words of the Reverend Brother that is my Opponent in the second Disputation, and by your Prefacers Dr. Kendal's course that its a passive instrumentality that the Defenders of your cause at last are driven to; and therefore talk not of its act of Justifying unless you will mean Gods act of Justifying which faith is the Condition of. And whereas you make unbelief to be formally a slighting and neglecting Christ as a Saviour and effectively (you must mean only effective & non formaliter) a denying subjection to him ⟨p. 316⟩as Lord. You err so great but so rare an error, that I suppose it needless to confute it. All Christians as far as I can learn have been till now agreed, that Believing in Christ as Prophet and King is a real part of faith, and that unbelief or rejecting him as Prophet and King is a real part of unbelief.

By your Arguments in your Preface, I perceive you think it a matter of very great moment to your cause, to prove that there are divers acts of Faith, whereas I am so far from denying it, that I am ready to demonstrate, that even the faith by which we are Justified, is liker to have twenty acts then one only, but many certainly it hath. Your first Argument is, from the different objects because the Objects specifie the Acts. A sufficient Argument which no man can confute. But 1. This is no proof, that one act only is it that we are justified by. 2. Where you add that Justifying Faith hath not respect to Christ as Lord formaliter, you beg the Question, and assert no light mistake. But where you add [in its act of Justifying] you do but obtrude upon us your fundamental Error (which leadeth you to the rest) by naked affirmations. Faith hath properly no justifying act: Justificare est efficere, Faith doth not effect our Justification: we are justified by faith indeed, but not as by an efficient cause unless you will take Justification for Sanctification; For real qualitative Mutations it doth effect; but the Jus or Title to any mercy in the world it cannot Effect, but Accept when offered. If you n see so plain a Truth in its Evidence, yet observe by the words of the Reverend Brother that is my Opponent in the second Disputation, and by your Prefacers Dr. Kendals course that its a passive instrumentality that the Defenders of your cause at last are driven to; and therefore talk not of its act of Justifying unless you will mean Gods act of Justifying which faith is the Condition of. And whereas you make unbelief to be formally a slighting and neglecting Christ as a Saviour and effectively (you must mean only effective & non formaliter) a denying subjection to him