The foundation of God standeth sure, or, A defence of those fundamental and so…

G. W. maketh no direct reply to this Syllogism, but findeth fault with the terms, and W. P. telleth us that God did not use to wrap his Truths in Heathenish Metaphysics, but in plain language; but let the Reader judge whether there be the heathenish Metaphysics he speaketh of in this Syllogism, wherein there is not a word but what is to be found in the Scripture; ⟨p. 14⟩not but that some words may be made use of, in explaining Scripture Truths, which are not in the Scripture themselves, so they express the thing which the Scripture doth signify (in other Phrases more proper to the languages, the Scripture were wrote 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 Syllogism, as a Christian in regard of the matter of it. My Syllogism 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 Syllogism, some Quakers (it may be) who know not what a Syllogism is, may believe that it bespeaks me to be little a Scholar, but no Scholar will judge so from that Syllogism, 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 Logic, or never understood Logic, or hath forgot Logic, or that purposely he hath laid aside Logic, that herein he might be like to the Quakers in answering nothing to the purpose; for besides his finding fault with my Syllogism, his reply to it doth most of all detect his want of Learning and gross absurdity, for which he would have been hissed out of the Schools, had he ⟨p. 15⟩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.

G. W. maketh 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;