A64989:113
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.
And here W. P. who had discovered before his skill in Logic, by arguing against the conclusion of my Syllogism, telling us he opposed the Minor; his skill in the Original Tongues, in noting the Holy ONE in great letters to prove Gods Unity, when the word One is not to be found in the Hebrew Text; doth make a third attempt to show something of a Scholar, but is as unhappy as before, and as grossly as in the two former attempts, doth signify to all that understand Learning, that he is a proud boaster, and pretender to that which he never attained unto. He telleth us the Doctrine of the Trinity was never believed by the Primitive ⟨p. 51⟩Saints, nor ever thus stated by any he hath read in three first Centuries, particularly Irenaeus, Just in Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Theophilus, (Theophilact, who lived several hundred after Athanasius, was cited by W. P. but I find in the Errata it is corrected Theophilus) with many other, who appear wholly foreign to the matter in controversy. But who ever will peruse these Authors W. P. maketh mention of, with others who writ in those times, will find both his lies to be very great, and his reading to be very little, notwithstanding this vain flourish and boasting.
And here W. P. who had discovered before his skill in Logick, by arguing against the conclusion of my Syllogism, telling us he opposed the Minor; his skill in the Original Tongues, in noting the Holy ONE in great letters to prove Gods Unity, when the word One is not to be found in the Hebrew Text; doth make a third attempt to show something of a Scholar, but is as unhappy as before, and as grosly as in the two former attempts, doth signifie to all that understand Learning, that he is a proud boaster, and pretender to that which he never attained unto. He telleth us the Doctrine of the Trinity was never believed by the Primitive ⟨p. 51⟩Saints, nor ever thus stated by any he hath read in three first Centuries, particularly Irenaeus, Just in Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Theophilus, (Theophilact, who lived several hundred after Athanasius, was cited by W. P. but I finde in the Errata it is corrected Theophilus) with many other, who appear wholly forreign to the matter in controversie. But who ever will peruse these Authors W. P. maketh mention of, with others who writ in those times, will finde both his lies to be very great, and his reading to be very little, notwithstanding this vain flourish and boasting.