I might here add, that the Law being relaxed, to put in the name of a surety, whose payment was refusable; hereupon the solution being not in this respect the same in obligation, (for sum alius solvit, aliud solvitur and so being not solutio ejusdem, but tantidem, the discharge doth not immediately follow; especially seeing it was neither the will of God, nor of Christ, that an immediate discharge should be given, which appears by Scripture strongly by a negative argument thus, There is no Scripture can be produced from whence, without manifest injury to the Holy Ghost, this can be drawn by any tolerable consequence, that by virtue of Christ’s death all the Elect are ipso facto invested with Christ’s righteousness, and are actually justified without the intervention of faith; nay, the Scriptures expressly threatening unbelievers with damnation, and limiting salvation to Believers, do evidently declare the contrary. Neither let any reject this argument drawn from the Scripture negatively; for although this argument be infirm in matters of less consequence, yet in fundamentals it is of great force; such as this is, by what means this righteousness of Christ shall be applied to justification; therefore in such truths as concern our salvation, this is of main importance, it is not written, therefore it is not to be believed. Indeed if Christ had merited this absolutely, that we should be justified whether we believe, or not believe, the matter had been otherwise.

Thomas Warren, Unbelievers No Subjects of Justification, Nor of Mystical Union to Christ (London: Printed by E. T. for John Browne at the sign of the Acron in Pauls Church-yard, 1654), 17.

[Credit to Tony for the find]

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 19th, 2015 at 12:42 pm and is filed under The Distinction Between Equivalency and Identity. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Comments are closed at this time.