A64989:147
The foundation of God standeth sure, or, A defence of those fundamental and so…
The foundation of God standeth sure, or, A defence of those fundamental and so generally believed doctrines of the Trinity of persons in the unity of the divine essence, of the satisfaction of Christ, the second person of the real and glorious Trinity, of the justification of the ungodly by the imputed righteousness of Christ, against the cavils of W.P.J. a Quaker in his pamphlet entitled The sandy foundation shaken &c. : wherein his and the Quakers hideous blasphemies, Socinian and damnably-heretical opinions are discovered and refuted ... / by Thomas Vincent.The foundation of God standeth sure, or, A defence of those fundamental and so generally believed doctrines of the Trinity of persons in the unity of the divine essence, of the satisfaction of Christ, the second person of the real and glorious Trinity, of the justification of the ungodly by the imputed righteousness of Christ, against the cavils of W.P.J. a Quaker in his pamphlet entituled The sandy foundation shaken &c. : wherein his and the Quakers hideous blasphemies, Socinian and damnably-heretical opinions are discovered and refuted ... / by Thomas Vincent.
London : s.n., 1668
Chapter 8: An Answer to W. Ps cavils against the Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Therefore he hath not satisfied Gods justice at all. I shall not here argue against his conclusion, but deny his minor asserting, that Christ did satisfy Gods justice as God-man; and it doth not follow, if his proof should be good that he could not do it alone as God, or alone as Man, that therefore he could not do it as God-Man; neither is it true, as be obscurely phraseth it, that where two middle positions ⟨p. 65⟩are inconsistent with the nature of the end for which they are brought, their Conjunction doth rather augment than lessen the difficulty of their accomplishment. For as the Soul cannot see without the Body for want of an Organ, nor the Body cannot see without the Soul for want of a visive faculty, yet the man can see, and so both Soul and Body can do that in Conjunction which neither can do in Separation. Therefore though God separately cannot satisfy, (from a better reason than any he bringeth) because he cannot suffer, and man separately cannot satisfy, because the satisfaction would not be of Infinite value, yet as God-man he satisfied, the Manhood suffering, and the God-head putting a value upon it.
Therefore he hath not satisfied Gods justice at all. I shall not here argue against his conclusion, but deny his minor asserting, that Christ did satisfie Gods justice as God-man; and it doth not follow, if his proofe should be good that he could not do it alone as God, or alone as Man, that therefore he could not do it as God-Man; neither is it true, as be obscurely phraseth it, that where two middle positions ⟨p. 65⟩are inconsistent with the nature of the end for which they are brought, their Conjunction doth rather augment than lessen the difficulty of their accomplishment. For as the Soul cannot see without the Body for want of an Organ, nor the Body cannot see without the Soul for want of a visive faculty, yet the man can see, and so both Soul and Body can do that in Conjunction which neither can do in Separation. Therefore though God separately cannot satisfie, (from a better reason than any he bringeth) because he cannot suffer, and man separately cannot satisfie, because the satisfaction would not be of Infinite value, yet as God-man he satisfied, the Manhood suffering, and the God-head putting a value upon it.