A14095:1075
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.
You proceed and tell us, That to legitimate violence, or entitle oppression unto the inheritance bequeathed to conscionable and upright dealing, is without the prerogative of Omnipotency; and in ⟨p. 466⟩stead of giving a reason of your opinion, you express it in […] double phrase, as if you would make up in figures, what is wanting in argument; and say, It cannot be ratified by any Parliament of the Trinity; and indeed I read in Virgil of a Parliament sometimes called in heaven by Jupiter: but I doubt you are of Ovids fault, who as Seneca writes knew not when it was well. But you overdo only in words, and underdo in argument: and as if you had not phrasified enough, you further tell us, that The practice or countenancing of these and the like, are evil not in us only, to whom they are forbidden, but so evil in themselves, that the Almighty could not but forbid and condemn them, as profest enemies to his most sacred Majesty. Thus to phrasifie with you, is to fetch Divinity from the fountain, and not from the trenches; though you bring neither evidence of Scripture, nor evidence of reason to justify it. That which you do bring such as it is, is rather from reason then from Scripture. And if it be so manifest in reason, as you seem to signify, the less need I should think there was of forbidding it: yet you say God could not but forbid it. And where I pray must he forbid it, and by what law? Is it by the law revealed in his word, or by the law of nature? As for the law revealed in his word, that was communicated only to the Jews; and why God was necessitated to forbid it to one small nation, and not to another, I can devise no reason. The law of nature I confess is general, forbidding such things as are known to be evil by the light of nature; but doth it teach that God cannot legitimate any such actions? Jephthah thought otherwise, as appears by the message he sent to the King of Ammon, Wilt thou not possess that which Chemish thy god giveth 1thee to possess? So whomsoever the Lord our. God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess. And it is observable, that whereas in other particulars you have derived the absolute unlawfulness of such actions, from the incongruity of them to the nature of God; as namely, because he is true, therefore he hateth falsehood;
You proceed and tell us, That to legitimate violence, or entitle oppression unto the inheritance bequeathed to conscionable and upright dealing, is without the prerogative of Omnipotencie; and in