A64989:165
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
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.
In W. P's conclusion, by way of caution, he telleth us, he doth not disown Father, Word, and Spirit to be one, but he disowneth them to be three Persons, which hath been proved out of the Scripture; that the Trinity (as he saith) hath not a foundation in the Scripture; that its original was three hundred years after Christianity was in the World, hath been proved to be false. What he speaketh concerning the Council of Sirmia, That the controversy concerning the Trinity should not be remembered, because the Scriptures made no mention thereof, is also falsely alleged; for by that very Council the Doctrine of the Trinity is expressly asserted as a chief article of the Christian faith; and the distinction of Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, plainly implied in the Anathema, which was pronounced upon those that asserted they were but one Person; that which W. P. citeth is concerning the word [Greek or Hebrew], in which this Council was heterodox, as it might well be, when so much influenced by the Emperor Constantius, who himself was infected with Arianism. But W. P. should have looked into the Councils more ancient and authentic, than the Sirmian, namely the first Nicene Council, which condemned the Arian heresy, blasphemously denying the Son to be coeternal and coessential with the Father: the first Constantinopolitan council which condemned the Macedonian heresy denying the Deity of the Holy Ghost. The ⟨p. 73⟩Council of Ephesus Chalcedon, who with other approved ecumenical Councils, generally assented to the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the Consubstantiality of the three Persons.
In W. P's conclusion, by way of caution, he teleth us, he doth not disown Father, Word, and Spirit to be one, but he disowneth them to be three Persons, which hath been proved out of the Scripture; that the Trinity (as he saith) hath not a foundation in the Scripture; that its original was three hundred years after Christianity was in the World, hath been proved to be false. What he speaketh concerning the Council of Sirmia, That the controversie concerning the Trinity should not be remembred, because the Scriptures made no mention thereof, is also falsely alledged; for by that very Council the Doctrine of the Trinity is expresly asserted as a chief article of the Christian faith; and the distinction of Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, plainly implyed in the Anathema, which was pronounced upon those that asserted they were but one Person; that which W. P. citeth is concerning the word 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, in which this Council was heterodox, as it might well be, when so much influenced by the Emperor Constantius, who himself was infected with Arianisme. But W. P. should have looked into the Councils more ancient and authentique, than the Sirmian, namely the first Nicene Council, which condemned the Arian heresie, blasphemously denying the Son to be coeternal and coessential with the Father: the first Constantinopolitan council which condemned the Macedonian heresie denying the Deity of the Holy Ghost. The