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…

The difference you make between man and God, I like well; man by forbearance may bereave himself of power to execute vengeance, God cannot: and this is a good reason of his forbearance towards the very reprobates; but towards his elect, a power exercised in another kind, yet a power too, namely, to sanctify the consideration of his forbearance, to bring them unto repentance; as also a power to provide for satisfaction to be made for their sins, by the blood of his Sonne. A sentence related out of the book of Wisdom. ch. 12. 15, 16, you say is canonical, although the Author be not; a distinction that I never read nor heard of before. And if the truth of a sentence be sufficient to make it canonical, the canonical Scriptures shall be multiplied unreasonably, not out of the book of Wisdom only, but out of the rest of the works of Philo the Jew, and Josephus too, yea and out of Seneca's works, and Plutarchs morals; not to speak of Plato, and Aristotle, or your Plotinus. But let us consider this canonical sentence you speak of and weigh the truth of it in the balance of the Sanctuary. I pray, wherein had our Saviour Christ and the Son of God deserved to be punished? And did not God (think you) think it agreeable to his power to condemn him, notwithstanding his innocency, and his fervent ⟨p. 439⟩prayers to be delivered from that cup, but with submission to the will of his Father? I pray consider the martyrdom of Gods Saints, were their punishments according to their deserts? Nay, what think you? is it not agreeable to Gods power to annihilate the holiest man that ever was? yet we do not say that God condemns any man, that hath not deserved to be punished, the Son of God and our Saviour only excepted. But the desert of eternal death is not only in sin actual, but in sin original also, which Pelagius did not say, Arminius doth not, whether you do or no, I know not; the latter clause, which is this, Because thou art the Prince of all, it maketh thee to be gracious to all, makes a show to plead for universal grace, I cannot tell whether you lick your lips at this; yet the author of the book could not be ignorant what a difference, as touching the participation of his grace, God had put between the Jews and the Gentiles, for, He had showed his word unto Jacob, his statutes and ordinances unto Israel:

The difference you make betweene man and God, I like well; man by forbearance may bereave himselfe of power to execute vengeance, God cannot: and this is a good reason of his forbearance towards the verie reprobates; but towards his elect, a power exercised in another kind, yet a power too, namely, to sanctifie the consideration of his forbearance, to bring them unto repentance; as also a power to provide for satisfaction to be made for their sinnes, by the blood of his Sonne. A sentence related out of the booke of Wisedome. ch. 12. 15, 16, you say is canonicall, although the Author bee not; a distinction that I never read nor heard of before. And if the truth of a sentence be sufficient to make it canonical, the canonicall Scriptures shal be multiplied unreasonably, not out of the book of Wisdome only, but out of the rest of the works of Philo the Iew, and Iosephus too, yea and out of Senecaes workes, and Plutarchs morals; not to speake of Plato, and Aristotle, or your Plotinus. But let us consider this canonicall sentence you speake of and weigh the truth of it in the ballance of the Sanctuarie. I pray, wherein had our Saviour Christ and the Sonne of God deserved to be punished? And did not God (thinke you) thinke it agreeable to his power to condemne him, notwithstanding his innocencie, and his fervent