A14095:1011
A discovery of D. Jacksons vanity. Or A perspective glass, whereby the admirers of…A discovery of D. Iacksons vanitie. Or A perspective glasse, wherby the admirers of…
A discovery of D. Jacksons vanity. Or A perspective glass, whereby the admirers of D. Jacksons profound discourses, may see the vanity and weakness of them, in sundry passages, and especially so far as they tend to the undermining of the doctrine hitherto received. Written by William Twice, Doctor of Divinity, as they say, from whom the copy came to the pressA discovery of D. Iacksons vanitie. Or A perspective glasse, wherby the admirers of D. Iacksons profound discourses, may see the vanitie and weaknesse of them, in sundry passages, and especially so farre as they tende to the undermining of the doctrine hitherto received. Written by William Twisse, Doctor of Divinitie, as they say, from whom the copie came to the presse
Amsterdam: printed by the successors of Giles Thorp, 1631
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 therefore if it belongs to the mind to seek to instamp her rules upon inferior faculties, she shall be as forward to stamp rules of iniquity, as rules of equity. And with what congruity I pray you may rules of equity be said to be stamped upon faculties, that are not intellectual? appetites are guided by rules, in their motions, not instamped with them. Rules of knowledge are circumstant to appetites of doing, not inherent in them. And why should not these rules of equity be stamped on the will, as well as on sensual appetites? or if it be so, why should you reckon the will an inferior faculty in comparison to the mind? whereas indeed the will rules in ⟨p. 415⟩man as king, the mind is but his privy Councillor.
And therefore if it belongs to the mind to seek to instamp her rules upon inferiour faculties, she shall be as forward to stamp rules of iniquity, as rules of equity. And with what congruity I pray you may rules of equity be said to bee stamped upon faculties, that are not intellectuall? appetites are guided by rules, in their motions, not instamped with them. Rules of knowledge are circumstant to appetites of doing, not inherent in them. And why should not these rules of equity be stamped on the will, as well as on sensuall appetites? or if it be so, why should you reckon the will an inferiour facultie in comparison to the minde? whereas indeed the will rules in ⟨p. 415⟩man as king, the minde is but his privie Councellor.
To quash an exception that might arise against your tenet touching the integrity of nature, as thus, If the mind have such good rules, and withal seeks to instamp them upon inferior faculties, how comes it to pass that there is so little love of virtue in many? your answer is, that this proceeds from their disposition, being over-grown with sensual desires. But by your leave this is a weak reason, for it only transfers the difficulty, but answers not the doubt; for still I may demand, how it came to pass that these rules of equity did not prevent the growth of these sensual desires, and without grace what place is left for any goodness in the nature of man? Philosophers had a love of virtue, but can you show they had any love of God? their most virtuous actions in the state of nature, was not Austin bold to call them splendida peccata,