A64989:109
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 6: Ananswer to part of the 10, the 12, 13, 14, and 15 pages of W. P's Pamphlet, which he i…
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.
That the Doctrine of the Trinity came into the world above three hundred years after the first ⟨p. 49⟩preaching of the Gospel by the nice distinctions, and too daring curiosity of the Bishop of Alexandria, is one of W. Pen's loud lies.
That the Doctrine of the Trinity came into the world above three hundred years after the first ⟨p. 49⟩preaching of the Gospel by the nice distinctions, and too daring curiosity of the Bishop of Alexandria, is one of W. Pen's loud lyes.
It was indeed opposed by Arius about that time, who denied Christ to be equal to, and of the same substance with the Father, yet not first opposed by him, but by other heretics before him; one of whose disciples (if not worse;) W. P. hath in his Pamphlet sufficiently proved himself to be; and if it were opposed before, sure it was known before, so that W. P. might have derived the pedigree of his abomination and blasphemy, (if he had consulted Church History) higher than from Arius. The miserable end of which blasphemer and dishonourer of the eternal Son of God, who voided his entrails with his excrements in a place of easement, and so died by an unheard of death, should caution all others from offering the like indignities unto the Son, as to disrobe him of his Deity, and number him amongst creatures like themselves, lest he stretch forth the arm of his Almighty power, and make them feel him (if they will not otherwise acknowledge him) to be God by bringing some remarkable destruction upon them in this world.
It was indeed opposed by Arius about that time, who denied Christ to be equal to, and of the same substance with the Father, yet not first opposed by him, but by other hereticks before him; one of whose disciples (if not worse;) W. P. hath in his Pamphlet sufficiently proved himself to be; and if it were opposed before, sure it was known before, so that W. P. might have derived the pedigree of his abomination and blasphemy, (if he had consulted Church History) higher than from Arius. The miserable end of which blasphemour and dishonourer of the eternal Son of God, who voided his entrails with his excrements in a place of easement, and so died by an unheard of death, should caution all others from offering the like indignities unto the Son, as to disrobe him of his Deity, and number him amongst creatures like themselves, lest he stretch forth the arm of his Almighty power, and make them feel him (if they will not otherwise acknowledge him) to be God by bringing some remarkable destruction upon them in this world.