A64989:151
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.
To the Third, What a wretched audacious sinner is this! to fasten unworthiness upon God, if he punished an innocent person, and required satisfaction where nothing was due; when the Son did voluntarily undertake to be our surety, and was ⟨p. 66⟩punished as bearing our sins, and satisfied for us, and not himself; what unworthiness in God to change the persons, and put his Son to death to save us alive? Is it not unworthiness and abominable baseness in any of the Children of men, to open their mouths against God for this? And if it were unworthy to punish an Innocent person, and it is certain Christ was punished, if he were not punished for us to satisfy Gods justice, it will follow from W. P's words, that Christ should be a sinner (which is Blasphemy) and that he was punished for his on sins.
To the Third, What a wretched audacious sinner is this! to fasten unworthiness upon God, if he punished an innocent person, and required satisfaction where nothing was due; when the Son did voluntarily undertake to be our surety, and was ⟨p. 66⟩punished as bearing our sins, and satisfied for us, and not himself; what unworthiness in God to change the persons, and put his Son to death to save us alive? Is it not unworthiness and abominable baseness in any of the Children of men, to open their mouths against God for this? And if it were unworthy to punish an Innocent person, and it is certain Christ was punished, if he were not punished for us to satisfie Gods justice, it will follow from W. P's words, that Christ should be a sinner (which is Blasphemy) and that he was punished for his on sins.
W. P's fourth Consequence is abominably false, and the contrary true, this Doctrine doth the best answer the real intent of Christ's Life and Death.