( 3 0) I hope all that have Chriftian Ingenuitywill here underftand, that I (peak not this in the lealf meafure to di,riinith the excel- lency or neceffity of that'a&of fair h which cot.íìileth in the be-, lieving on Chrift as crucitied,.or in his blood and Ranfom l Or that I think it lets necetfary then the other to us now becaufe the Difciples then were juf idedwithout it. f knew the cafe is much altered , and that is now of neceifity to j unification that was not then. , But all that I endeavour is, to (hew that we are ¡unified by the other as of faith, as well as this,becaufe it is not likely that chofe ads thould not be now jutlifying, in conjundi- cn with this , by which men were then juftified without this. Argument 7, If the fat sfa&,on and merits ofChrift be the only Objects of the janifying act of raith, then ( according to their own principles ) they mull on the fame reafon, be the only objects of the fan&ifying and Paving a9s of faith. But the fa- tisfaction and merit of Chril are nor the only Objects of the fanctifying and laving acts of faith : therefore not of the jufti- lying. To this Mr. Blake anfwereth, by finding anEquivocation in the word Merit ; and four terms in the SyLogifm (as in other terms I had expreífed it.) And faith [we lookat Chrift for jrs- ffifaca ion as fat isfying Iuftice, and meriting pardon and remiffion, not aslmeri;ing faníirfication. ] Repl. But this is his mif under - .ftanding of plain words The term [ (Meritor 1 was not equi- vocal, but the General comprehending both effects : And that which he nakedly affirms , is the thing which the Argument makes againít. Here it is fuppofed as a granted truth, that we can be no more fanctified, then ¡unified without Chrifts blood and merits : and fo the (copeof the Argument is this : Chrift as a Ranfom and a Meritor of fanctification,is not the only object of the fanctifying act of faith : therefore by parity of Reafon, (hritt as a Ranfom and Meritor of Juftification,is not the only object of the ¡unifying act of faith. The Antecedent of this Ent hymeme.or the k1inoeof the Argument thus explained,is not denied by them. They confe(s that faith for fandificatiort cloth receive Chrift him(elf not only as the Meritor of it, but,as Tea- cher Lord, King; Head, Husband; and doll apply his parti. Malar prornifes. But the meriting fanctification by his Wood and
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=