Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	doctrine_n	faith_n	scripture_n	3,083	5	5.9043	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64989	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.	Vincent, Thomas, 1634-1678.	1668 (1668)	Wing V438; ESTC R25705	51,791	83

Ghost most rightly they do partake of the same Essence and are dignified with one and the same Godhead What can be more plain And he goeth on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. How can any say that he which begetteth doth not differ from him which is begotten that he which proceedeth doth not differ from him from whom he proceedeth Here is Unity of Essence and Trinity of distinct Persons asserted plainly I shall add but one place more of many in Resp. 17. ad Ortho. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore there is but one God in one indistinct Essence and three Persons with distinction of their Persons or Subsistences Tertullian Lib. de Trinitate adversus Proaxnean doth express his faith in this doctrine throughout the whole Book and argueth it strongly from the Scriptures Cap. 12. Si te adhuc numerus scandalizat Trinitatis quasi non connexae in unitate simplici interrogo quomodo unicus singularis pluraliter loquitur Faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram Adam factus est tanquam unus ex nobis quia adhunc adhaerebat illi Filius secundae persona tertia Spiritus ideo pluraliter pronunciavit Faciamus nostram nobis If the number of the Trinity doth offend thee as if it could not be joyned in the simple unity I ask thee how thee one and single God doth speak pluraly Let us make Man after our Image Adam is become like one of us because the Son the second person and the Spirit the third did adhere to him therefore he spake pluraly Let us make our us Chap. 13. Pater Deus Filius Deus Spiritus Sanctus Deus the Father is God and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God Chap. 31. Pater Filius Spiritus Sanctus tres crediti unum Deum sistunt The Father Son and Holy Ghost the three we are to believe in bold forth but one God Theophilus Lib. 1. Com in Evang doth acknowledge the Trinity Margarita pretiosa est Sancta Trinitas quae dividi non potest nam in unitate consistit The Holy Trinity is a precious Iewel which cannot be divided because it consisteth in unity Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in preaemio and Cap. 2. I am informed by a learned Author doth expresse his Faith in this Doctrine but I have not that Peice of Origen by me as I have the rest to consult I could adde the testimony of other Fathers who lived before the time W. P. maketh mention of but it is enough to cite these for the detection of the falshood of W. P. who telleth us that these Fathers were strangers to the Doctrine of the Trinity wherefore the weakness absurdity falshood and folly of this man being made manifest I suppose people will be more cautious than to follow him and the guidance of the light which W. P. saith is communicated unto all and forsake the true Light of the Word and Spirit which alone can guide men into all truth CHAP. VII The Doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ the second person of the real and glorious Trinity asserted and proved IF the doctrine of the ever glorious Trinity or three persons Father Son and Holy Ghost in one Godhead had been overthrown by W. P. or could be indeed shaken by the Sociniant which with all the argument they can device in vain they do endeavour if he or they could prove which they never can that there is but one person in the God-head then it would follow that Christ could not be the eternal Son of God the second person of this glorious Trinity as W. P. most blasphemously stileth him the second person of the imagin'd Trinity and by consequence the Doctrine of satisfaction depending upon this person would fall to the ground and might by invincible argument be refuted it being impossible for any meer finite creature to make plenary satisfaction to the infinite Justice of God But the Doctrine of the Trinity being established by Scripture Testimony and the Lord Jesus Christ proved to be God equal with the Father the Doctrine also of satisfaction dependent upon this second person of the real and ever glorious Trinity will remain firm against all Quaker and Socinian attempts to overthrow it and before I give answer unto the objections and cavils against this Doctrine I shall breifly assert and prove the doctrine by the Word of Truth in the Holy Scripture W. P. in his title The impossibility of Gods pardoning offin without a plenary satisfaction refuted seemeth to infinuate that he denyeth onely the impossibility of Gods pardoning sin without satisfaction but whoever readeth his arguments shall finde them to be the very same which the Socinians use against Satisfaction it self and that he plainly denyeth the thing therefore I shall not concern my self to enquire what God could or might do if he pleased but what he hath decreed and determined to do and declared in the Scripture to be his will and here I affirm 1. That God never doth nor will nor can pardon any sinner without satisfaction made to his offended Iustice for their sins And that because his holiness righteousness and truth obligeth him to take vengeance upon all that have transgressed his Law the Lord is so Holy that he hateth all the workers of iniquity Psal. 5. 5. and what is Gods hatred but Percatum pro merito suo velle punire as Bradsh de Iust. his will to punish sin and sinners according to their desert His Justice doth engage him by no means to clear the guilty Exod. 34. 7. and his truth would be enfringed if he should not curse every one that centinueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. II. That no sinners themselves by any thing they can do or suffer in this life can give satisfaction unto Gods Iustice for their sins And the reason is because whatever good they do is no more than duty wherein also they must have Divine help to enable them and when they have done their duty their works are but imperfect and they unprofitable servants and this can make no compensation for their faults before Luk. 17. 10. When have done all the things commanded say we are unprofitable servants c. Our righteousnesses are as filthy raggs Isa. 64. 6. And what ever sinners suffer in this life it is infinitely short of what their sins have deserved Gods Justice is infinite and requierth an infinite satisfaction sinners are finite and therefore there is no porportion between any thing they can bring and what Gods Justice doth require for satisfaction III. That Iesus Christ being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and Man in one person was onely fit to make and hath actually made satisfaction unto Gods infinite and offended Iustice for the sins of Men. It was necessary that the person that should make satisfaction should be man because none but a creature could suffer and none but a man could be a fit

of sin Peace of Conscience Immunity from the Curse and Condemnation of the Law Take away Satisfaction then the Word and Spirit and we are false Witnesses thereof then is our preaching vain and your Faith also is vain then you are all yet in your sins then you must all of you of necessity be damned and punished eternally Take away Satisfaction and you take away Christ and you take away all And therefore let not W. P. think to easily to perswade people to let go this Principle which whosoever doth it hath made Shipwrack of his Faith and of necessity must fall into the Ocean of Gods Wrath which none can escape without this Satisfaction And therefore I would here caution W. P. with more reason then he doth the people and speak to him according to the Words of the Apostle Peter to Simon Magus Acts 8. 21. 22 23. I perceive thou hast no part in this matter namely Christ's Satisfaction which thou deniest neither is thy heart right in the sight of God but hereby evidently dost declare thy self to be in the Gall of Bitterness and the bond of Iniquity yet repent of thy wicked Blasphemies and Abominable heretical Assertions if perhaps the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee CHAP. IX The Iustification of the Vngodly by the imputed Righteousness of Christ asserted and proved HAving proved and vindicated the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction from the Cavils of W. P. The Doctrine of Justification by Christ's imputed Righteousness doth evidently follow from it for since there can be no Remission of sin therefore no Justification without Satisfaction to Gods offended Justice as hath been proved and since this Satisfaction cannot be given to God by Sinners themselves and Christ only hath given it which also hath been proved there is no way imaginable how we can be justified but by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us 2 Cor. 5. 21. For he hath made him to be Sin for us who knew no Sin that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him As Christ was made sin for us though Innocent by the Imputation of our sin to him for which he was condemned and punished So we are made the Righteousness of God in him though guilty by the Imputation of his Righteousness unto us whereby we are justified And what other meaning than Iustification by Christ's imputed Righteousness can that Scripture have which speaketh of the Blessedness of the Man unto whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness without Works Rom. 4. 6. That this Blessedness spoken of is Iustification appeareth from the scope of the place which is to prove the Doctrine of Iustification and the following words also do evince it vers 7. Blessed is the Man whose Iniquities are forgiven c. That this Righteousness is not a mans own is evident because it is a Righteousness without Works and then whose Righteousness can it be but the Righteousness of Christ and that this Righteousness is imputed are the words of the Scripture therefore the proof is firm that we are justified by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Unto which Scripture I may add for the further clearing and Confirmation of this Doctrine of Iustification by Christ's Imputed Righteousness this Argument grounded upon Scripture If there be no other way for Sinners to be iustified but by Faith in Iesus Christ then Iustification is by the Imputed righteousness of Christ. But there is no other way for Sinners to be justified but by Faith in Iesus Christ. Therefore Iustification is by the imputed Righteousness of Christ. The Consequence of the Major is evident because Faith justifieth only with a respect to Christ's Righteousness without us called therefore Righteousness by Faith distinguished from our own Righteousness Phil. 3. 9. and how is this Righteousness by Faith but as it is applied by us and imputed by God to us through Faith Faith cannot justifie as a work because all works are excluded in the matter of Justification therefore it must Justifie as an Instrument applying Christ Righteousness which being without us can be made ours no other way than by Imputation The Minor that Sinners are justified only by Faith in Jesus Christ is as clear as any Doctrine in the whole Book of God it being the design of the Apostle Paul to prove this expresly in the first part of Epistle to the Romans and in the second and third Chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians How many times doth he say we are justified by Faith without Works and how strongly doth he Argue the necessity of Iustification this way because of the universal Guilt upon Mankind and deficiency of Righteousness inherent therefore that they must seek for a Righteousness without themselves which is Christs Righteousness therefore that they can be justified only by Faith which Faith he putteth in opposition to all works not only of the Ceremonial and Morral Law but also to all Works wrought in Faith which are works still such as Abrahams Works and Davids Works were who yet were not justified upon the account of any of their Works that all Boasting might be excluded Rom. 4. 2. And the Apostle telleth us plainly vers 5. That God justifieth the Vngodly no Persons being the Subjects of Gospel Iustification but as Vngodly that is as having sinned and as having no Works no Righteousness of their own to procure Justification for them The sence is that God findeth every one Ungodly Guilty Filthy whom he doth justifie freely by his Grace through the Redemption and Righteousness of Christ but he doth not leave them Ungodly where he removeth the guilt of sin he removeth also the filth of sin Iustification and Sanctification being inseparable Companions and though Justification be altogether distinct from Sanctification yet it is never without Sanctification which if W. P's cloudy Brains had rightly apprehended it would have given an answer in the making of them to most of his Objections which he hath brought against this Doctrine where he argueth from the Concomitant unto the Cause and his deductions or most pittiful non sequitur's I intended to have run thorow them all and given particular Answers to them but that Mr. Danson who is concerned to reply to something in his Book Intendeth to answer him in this Point and withall to give a Synopsis of Quakerisme in other points besides these three Namely their asserting 1. Good Works to be the Meritorious cause of our Iustification 2. That a State of Freedome from sin is attainable in this life 3. That there is a leight in every Man sufficient to guide him to salvation 4. That the Scripture is not the Word of God nor a standing rule of faith and life 5. That there is no resurrection of the body 6. That there is no need or use of Ordinances Baptisme Lords Supper c. The book he intendeth will be small but the use of it may be great in this day when the Quakers are so busie to gain proselites for the establishment

no direct reply to this Sylogism but findeth fault with the terms and W. P. telleth us that God did not use to wrap his Truths in Heathenish Metaphysicks but in plain language but let the Reader judge whether there be the heathenish Metaphysicks he speaketh of in this Sylogism wherein there is not a word but what is to be found in the Scripture not but that some words may be made use of in explaining Scripture Truths which are not in the Scripture themselves so they expresse the thing which the Scripture doth signify in other Phrases more proper to the languages the Scripture were wrot in and I could make it evident out of the Books of the Quakers themselves that they use many words which are not in the Scripture No answer could be obtained to my argument in the Meeting but W. P. taking the argument into further consideration attempteth at length in his Pamphlet to make a reply and first taxeth me to be as little a Scholar in regard of the manner of my Sylogism as a Christian in regard of the matter of it My Sylogism was urged to prove the three glorious persons in the Godhead the denial of which doth necessarily infer the denial of Christ to be God equal with the Father and let any judge who approveth himself most a Christian either W. P. in denying this or I in asserting and proving it As to the manner of my Sylogism some Quakers it may be who know not what a Sylogism is may believe that it bespeaks me to be little a Scholar but no Scholar will judge so from that Sylogism which they know to be according to rule and to carry a firm proof in it drawn from the Induction of particulars but W. P. discovereth himself to be that which he taxeth me for namely little a Scholar and though he hath been at the University yet that either he never read Logick or never understood Logick or hath forgot Logick or that purposely he hath laid aside Logick that herein he might be like to the Quakers in answering nothing to the purpose for besides his finding fault with my Sylogism his reply to it doth most of all detect his want of Learning and grosse absurdity for which he would have been hissed out of the Schools had he done it in the University for though he telleth us he will give his reason why he will deny my Minor yet most ridiculously and ignorantly he argueth against my conclusion The Minor as he repeateth it is But they are not three manifestations three operations three substances or three some things else besides subsistences The conclusion Therefore three subsistences If he had indeed denied the Minor he must have asserted that they were either three substances or operations or manifestations or something else but he mistaketh the conclusion for the Minor and argueth that they are not three subsistences No one substance can have three distinct subsistences c. W. P. argueth against the Trinity of persons in the unity of Essence behold the Christian he argueth against the conclusion of a Sylogism calling it the Minor behold the Scholar yet because his argument is against our Doctrine therefore I shall give answer thereunto and his other cavils together in the sixth chap. After this he reflected upon Mr. Madox in the 11. page whose answer you have in the following Chapter CHAP. III. An Answer to the 11. page of W. P's pernicious Pamphlet by W. M. ANd because G. W. willing to bring this strange Doctrine This Doctrine is strange to none but such as are strangers to God and ignorant of the Scriptures whose eyes the God of this world hath blinded lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ who is the Image of God should shine into them 2 Cor. 4. 3 4. but as Ephraim when joyned to idols counted the great things of Gods Law a strange thing Hos. 8. 12. so these men having prostituted themselves to an Idol of their own brains The Light within which is their Christ and Savior count the Doctrine of the true God a strange Doctrine To the capacity of the people You mean to the scorn and contempt of the people for his design was not to explain but to expose the Doctrine and it is absurd to imagine that he could facilitate that to the understanding of others which he himself neither derstands nor believes Compar'd their three Persons to three Apostles By their three persons you mean the three increated Persons of the ever blessed Trinity the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost Of the insolency and wickedness of this Comparison you shall hear by and by onely here let me tell you that we have endeavoured to make them ours by a fiducial application of them to our selves and it is no dishonor to us though it be a blasphemous reflection on them that they are in reproach called our three persons because we appear in vindication of them saying he did not understand how Paul Peter and Iohn could be three persons and one Apostle Neither did we assert it either directly or by consequence For though we call the father Son and Holy Ghost three Persons or He 's according as they are held forth in the Scriptures yet we say there is a vast and infinite difference between three created and the three increated persons for three created persons are so many distinct and separate Essences as they are persons but all the increated persons have the same simple and unseparated essence of God Ioh. 10. 30. I and my Father are one 1 Joh. 5. 7. These three are one not one in person for so the Father is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Another from Christ Ioh. 5. 32. There is Another c. and the Holy Ghost is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioh. 14. 16. Another Comforter i. e. Another as to subsistence or manner of being but one in nature and essence so that though Paul Peter and Iohn being of a finite nature cannot be three persons and one Apostle yet I am sure from the Scripture that the Father Son and Holy Ghost being of an infinite nature are three persons and yet but one God and till you can prove that finite and infinite or God and the Creature are all one it will be in vain to make such a comparison for the shaking of this Foundation-truth A most apt comparison to detect the ridicult of their doctrine Or rather to discover the monstrous blindness hardness and unbelief of his own and your hearts who dare so boldly spit in the face of God like men that have cast off all fear and reverence of God as well as of men One Maddocks whose zeal out-stript his knowledge busling hard as one that had some necessary matter for the decision of Controversie These extravagant expressions designed to cast disgrace on my person I purposely overlook because I contend not for mine own honor but for the honor of God In stead thereof perhaps to save his brethren

High-Priest to offer up Sacrifice and make reconciliation for the sins of Men Heb. 2. 17. It was necessary he should be God because none but God so neerly united could strengthen the manhood to bear up under such a pressure of wrath and break thorow such sufferings as had taken hold on Christ for mans sins and if he had not been God as well as man the sufferings and satisfaction would have been but finite and so no proportionable satisfaction but through the infinite dignity of his person the satisfaction is of infinite value That Christ hath actually made satisfaction unto Gods Justice for the sins of men is the great Doctrine which I shall prove from the Scripture 1. We read in the Old Testament of the many Sacrifices which were offered up unto God for the appeasing of his wrath and the procuring remission for mens sins all which of themselves could not in the least attain that end for the Apostle telleth us plainly Heb. 10. 4. that it was not possible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sin but these Sacrifices did typically refer unto the Sacrifice which Christ should offer of himself unto God whereby satisfaction should be made unto God and remission obtained for men 2. In the New Testament the Scriptures are plain which prove the satisfaction which Christ made to Gods Justice for mans sin by his death on the Cross. Math. 20. 28. The Son of Man came to give his life a ransom for many and 1. Tim. 2. 6. He gave himself a ransom the price which Christ did pay for the ransom of men doth evidently prove that it was for satisfaction From what did Christ ransom many if it were not from the vengeance of God which their sins did expose them unto and how could his giving his life ransom them if he did not hereby give satisfaction unto the demands of Gods Justice Rom. 5. 6. In due time Christ died for the ungodly and how did Christ die for the ungodly was it onely for their good and so give them an example was it not in their stead and that by his death in their room he might satisfy offended justice we are said to be reconciled to God by the death of his Son v. 10. And could this be if he died only for an example Can we say that we are reconciled to God by the death of any Saints whose death is exemplary Was not Christ an innocent person And would the Father have deliver'd him up unto death had it not been in the room of others He died for sin indeed not his own he being perfectly free from sin but for our sins 1 Pet. 2. 24. Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the Tree And how did he bare our sins but by bearing the punishment due for them He was wounded for our transgressions c. Isa. 53. 5. And wherefore did he bear the punishment of our sins but that he might give satisfaction unto God's justice Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood c. so 1 Iob. 1. 2. Christ was set forth to be a propitiation or propitiatory sacrifice which doth plainly imply that God was angry with sinners and that Christ by the propitiatory sacrifice of himself did appease God's anger by giving satisfaction here by unto his Justice And therefore also Christ is called an offering and sacrifice Eph. 5. 2. As Christ hath loved us and given himself for us an offering unto God for a sweet smelling savour and Heb. 9. 22. He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself c. How could Christ put away sin by this sacrifice if this sacrifice were not for satisfaction Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us How could Christ redeem us from the curse of the Law and deliver us from the wrath to come part of the curse due to us for sin if he had not by being made a curse for us and thereby undergoing the punishment our sins deserved made satisfaction unto Gods justice 4. It is only through this satisfaction which Christ hath made that remission of sins and reconciliation unto God is attained or attainable by any of the Children of men The three former propositions are the reason of this last which doth necessarily result from them and in this the Scripture also is clear Eph. 1. 7. In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of his grace So Col. 1. 14. and Verse 20. Having made peace by the blood of his Cross by him to reconcile all things to himself Rom. 5. 10. If when we were enemies we were reconciled unto God by the death of his Son My small Tract will not permit inlargements in urging all the Scripture-arguments which may be brought to prove this great Doctrine of Christs satisfaction nor to vindicate the Scriptures that prove it from all Socinian exceptions If any would read more largely this subject handled in answer to the Socinians Dr. Owen his Mystery of the Gospel vindicated and Socinianisme examined I would commend to them as a Book of great worth and use in this day when Socinians begin so much to put forth the head as also for a lesser and later piece I would commend to them Mr. Ferguson's Iustification only upon a satisfaction The Texts I have quoted and urged may satisfie the sober and considering Christian who I believe doth wonder at W. P's confidence in asserting that there is nothing in the Scripture that doth look towards a satisfaction CHAP. VIII An Answer to W. Ps cavils against the Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction THe Apostle Peter telleth us 2 Pet. 3. 16. Of some unlearned unstable persons who wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction W. P. hath plainly discovered himself to be such a one whom the Apostle doth speak of as will appear in the review of the Scriptures he alledgeth against Christs satisfaction wherein I shall shew how they are wrested by him Exod. 34. 6 7. The Lord passed by c. proclaimed The Lord the Lord God gracious and merciful keeping mercy for thousands forgiving iniquity transgression and sin If W. P. had read and considered and believed the following words in the same 7. verse And will by no means clear the guilty the beames of Gods justice and holiness might have shined with such a lustre in his face as that he should not have dared to offer such an affront and indignity thereunto and incur the guilt which God there threatneth he will not clear men of without the supposition of a satisfaction to his offended justice to set up his mercy and love as inconsistent herewith and what blasphemy as well as absurdity is this to say that God could not be gracious should he exact the utmost farthing when he is so much the more gracious unto men in exacting nothing