To this Mr. Blake answereth, by finding an Equivocation in the word Merit; and four terms in the Syllogism (as in other terms I had expressed it.) And saith [We look at Christ for justification as satisfying Justice, and meriting pardon and remission, not as meriting sanctification.] Repl. But this is his mis-understanding of plain words The term [Meritor] was not equivocal, but the General comprehending both effects: And that which he nakedly affirms, is the thing which the Argument makes against. Here it is supposed as a granted truth, that we can be no more sanctified, then justified without Christs blood and merits: and so the scope of the Argument is this: Christ as a Ransom and a Meritor of sanctification, is not the only object of the sanctifying act of faith: therefore by parity of Reason, Christ as a Ransom and Meritor of Justification, is not the only object of the justifying act of faith. The Antecedent of this Enthymeme or the Minor of the Argument thus explained, is not denied by them. They confess that faith for sanctification doth receive Christ himself not only as the Meritor of it, but as Teacher Lord, King, Head, Husband; and doth apply his particular promises. But the meriting sanctification by his Blood ⟨p. 31⟩and Obedience, is no part of Christs Kingly or Prophetical Office, but belongs to his Priesthood, as well as the meriting of justification doth. For Christs sacrifice lays the general Ground-work of all the following benefits, both Justification, Adoption, Sanctification, Glorification: but it doth immediately effect or confer none of them all; but there are appointed ways for the collation of each one of them after the Purchase or Ransom. So that if the apprehending of the Ransom which is the general Ground do only justify; then the apprehending of the same Ransom as meriting sanctification, should only sanctify. And neither the justifying nor sanctifying acts of faith should respect either Christs following acts of his Priesthood, (Intercession) nor yet his Kingly or Prophetical office at all. And therefore as the sanctifying act must respect Christs following applicatory acts, and not the purchase of sanctification only; so the justifying act (to speak as they) must respect Christs following Collation or application, and not only his Purchase of Justification. And then I have that I plead for:
To this Mr. Blake answereth, by finding an Equivocation in the word Merit; and four terms in the Syllogism (as in other terms I had expressed it.) And saith [We look at Christ for justification as satisfying Iustice, and meriting pardon and remission, not as meriting sanctification.] Repl. But this is his mis-understanding of plain words The term [Meritor] was not equivocal, but the General comprehending both effects: And that which he nakedly affirms, is the thing which the Argument makes against. Here it is supposed as a granted truth, that we can be no more sanctified, then justified without Christs blood and merits: and so the scope of the Argument is this: Christ as a Ransom and a Meritor of sanctification, is not the only object of the sanctifying act of faith: therefore by parity of Reason, Christ as a Ransom and Meritor of Justification, is not the only object of the justifying act of faith. The Antecedent of this Enthymeme or the Minor of the Argument thus explained, is not denied by them. They confess that faith for sanctification doth receive Christ himself not only as the Meritor of it, but as Teacher Lord, King, Head, Husband; and doth apply his particular promises. But the meriting sanctification by his Blood ⟨p. 31⟩and Obedience, is no part of Christs Kingly or Prophetical Office, but belongs to his Priesthood, as well as the meriting of justification doth. For Christs sacrifice layes the general Ground-work of all the following benefits, both Justification, Adoption, Sanctification, Glorification: but it doth immediately effect or confer none of them all; but there are appointed wayes for the collation of each one of them after the Purchase or Ransom. So that if the apprehending of the Ransom which is the general Ground do only justifie; then the apprehending of the same Ransom as meriting sanctification, should only sanctify. And neither the justifying nor sanctifying acts of faith should respect either Christs following acts of his Priesthood, (Intercession) nor yet his Kingly or Prophetical office at all. And therefore as the sanctifying act must respect Christs following applicatory acts, and not the purchase of sanctification only; so the justifying act (to speak as they) must respect Christs following Collation or application, and not only his Purchase of Justification. And then I have that I plead for:
