A64989:43
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 3: An Answer to the 11. page of W. P's pernicious Pamphlet, by W. M.
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 till their Hypothesis be of better authority, G. W. neither did, nor doth design mens inventions so much honour] What authority our Hypothesis is of, is at present left to the Reader to judge, but shall certainly be proved one day to be of such authority, as neither G. W. nor W. P. shall be able to withstand: But what you mean by designing mens inventions so much honour, is not easy to to conjecture, unless you would have us to think it is an honour to be reproached by G. W. and it is not impossible that they who thrust all expressions of true honour out of the world, should account their incivilities an honour to those on whom they bestow them.
[And till their Hypothesis be of better authority, G. W. neither did, nor doth design mens inventions so much honor] What authority our Hypothesis is of, is at present left to the Reader to judge, but shall certainly be proved one day to be of such authority, as neither G. W. nor W. P. shall be able to withstand: But what you mean by designing mens inventions so much honor, is not easie to to conjecture, unless you would have us to think it is an honor to be reproached by G. W. and it is not impossible that they who thrust all expressions of true honor out of the world, should account their incivilities an honor to those on whom they bestow them.
[For it is to be remarked, that G. W. is no otherwise a Blasphemer, then by drawing direct consequences from their own Principles, and recharging them upon themselves.] What direct consequences did he draw from our Principles: his telling the people that this Doctrine was the cause of those gross apprehensions that ignorant people have of God the Father, as if he were an old man, and of ⟨p. 20⟩Christ like a little child, &c. and his comparing the three increated persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to three Apostles, Paul, Peter, and John; and his asserting the separate essences in God, as the result of three distinct persons, are no direct consequences from our Principles: but these are the things for which he is justly charged with Blasphemy; and if it be Blasphemy to say that man is equal with God, I know not how it can be any thing less than Blasphemy, to say that God is but equal with man, either as to his essence, or subsistence, and that because three distinct men are three distinct substances, which was the meaning of his comparison, but is boldly asserted by you in your Pamphlet, page 13. Reas. 1. I tremble to see and read such black lines.