A14095:1020
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.
No wise man (in this state of our corruption) will please himself, in conceiting himself to be a King, much less to be a God, but reckons of such fancies as most vain and frivolous: let us leave unto Clowns such conceits, O if I were a King I would live like a Lord, I would eat fat beef, and glory ⟨p. 429⟩porridge, and have a whip should cry slash. Dic mihi si sieres tu Leo qualis eris. And what devise you should move all the rest of the mutineers to concur with him in so unreasonable an affectation? Do you think the chief called in Scripture the Devil, did sin in one thing, to wit, in affecting majesty infinite, and the rest, called his Angels, in another thing, to wit, in standing with him, and standing for him? I should rather think their sin was one and the same: And I make no doubt but their sin was pride. Sure I am, they were not subject to concupiscence of the flesh, or concupiscence of the eye, but to pride, spirits may be subject as well as men. But wherein this pride manifested it self, that is a great mystery; but if they did affect divine Majesty, I should think it was in a way whereby they were capable of it: and this is now revealed to be by hypostatizing. And there is no question but that God could hypostatize an Angel, and as many as he would, as well as man. But I do not say that they did affect it; I have no ground to conceive that any such thing entered into their thoughts. But as God took a course to put Adam and Eve to the trial of their obedience, so it is very likely God had a course to put the Angels to the trial of their obedience, which became a scandal to many of them, through pride and disdain to be in subjection, not that they disdained to be in subjection unto God, but more likely to some inferior nature, which was to be advanced to the throne of God. For as God made this visible world for the service of man, so God might withal reveal unto them what his purpose was, namely, to advance the nature of man unto his own throne, so that all the Angels of God must worship him: Th•s I say might be the rock of offence to them, of any more fit then this, I cannot conceive.
No wise man (in this state of our corruption) will please himselfe, in conceiting himselfe to be a King, much lesse to be a God, but reckons of such fancies as most vaine and frivolous: let us leave unto Clownes such conceits, O if I were a King I would live like a Lord, I would eate fat beese, and glorry ⟨p. 429⟩