A64989:94
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.
The other Scriptures prove that there is one God essentially in opposition unto all that upon any other account are called Gods, not being Gods by essence, all which do but assert that which is acknowledged and hath been already proved in the former Chapter ⟨p. 41⟩that there is but one God. In the argument which W. P. draws from the fore-mentioned Scriptures, he doth again show his ignorance, if he know not that in several of these places the word one is not in the Hebrew; or his deceitfulness, if he know and dissemble it, and thinks by laying stress on the word one, to impose upon the understandings of the vulgar, as if there were some great force in his argument from those places, when indeed they prove not in the least what he allegeth them for.
The other Scriptures prove that there is one God essentially in opposition unto all that upon any other account are called Gods, not being Gods by essence, all which do but assert that which is acknowledged and hath been already proved in the former Chapter ⟨p. 41⟩that there is but one God. In the argument which W. P. draws from the fore-mentioned Scriptures, he doth again show his ignorance, if he know not that in several of these places the word one is not in the Hebrew; or his deceitfulness, if he know and dissemble it, and thinks by laying stress on the word one, to impose upon the understandings of the vulgar, as if there were some great force in his argument from those places, when indeed they prove not in the least what he alledgeth them for.
But allowing W. P. to draw his argument from those places, which do prove the unity of God; though God be declared and believed to be but one, it will not follow that the Divine nature doth not subsist in three persons; the Scripture indeed doth hold him forth as one God, but there it speaketh of his essence; and yet withal doth elsewhere sufficiently declare that in this one essence there are three distinct persons; therefore we profess our belief of the Holy three (persons) as well as the Holy one God, and both according to the plain Scripture before urged for proof hereof,