I perceive now that you think the receiving Christ as Priest, and as King, are two distinct acts; and that the former alone justifies us, not only without the other, as a Condition, but even withouth its presence, which is but to follow because we are justified. Contrary, He that receives not Christ as Christ (that is, in all the essentials of his Mediatorial Office) does not receive him, so as to be justified by him. But he that receives him only as Priest, and not as King, does not receive him as Christ; therefore, etc. The Scripture calls him Christ, the Anointed, more fully and frequently, in respect to the Kingly part of his Office than any. A false Faith does not justifie: But to receive Christ only as Priest, and not as King, is a false Faith; therefore, etc. Again, He that knows not Christ to be the King of the Church by Office, and de jure the Ruler of his Soul, knows him not with a true knowledge (no more than he that knows not that a man hat a head, but only a heart, hath a tre knowledge of man); therefore so to receive him is no true receiving. And if he know him to be King, and yet receive him not as such, then it is worst of all. Lastly, To receive Christ so as he was never offered, is no true receiving: But to receive him as Priest only, is so to receive him as he was never offered; therefore, etc. And therefore this receiving which you speak of does not justify.

From page 208, A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness – Google Books.