A14095:1111
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.
Yet this truth you dare secretly to outface, without taking any notice of it. But here you argue; well, let us consider it; For men to bless God and to curse men, doth argue a dissolution of that internal harmony which should be in the humane nature: therefore for God to hate some men, and to love others, would necessarily infer a greater distraction in the indivisible essence, besides the contradiction which it implies to infinite goodness. This latter clause is thrust in to make weight, and to turn the scale, but being nothing save mere breath and air, makes it rather lighter. Like as when the Spaniard to make his state weigh as much as the state of France, and finding that Spain and other places ⟨p. 489⟩1would not serve the turn, clapped in Milan and Naples into the balance, whereupon it was found well the lighter. Yet I am content to consider that also in its turn. But first of the argument. My answer hereunto is twofold: First, as touching the antecedent; I say, and have already showed, that the passage of James, whereat you aim, proceeds of cursing, only 2as it signifies cursed speaking, not as it signifies the pronouncing of a curse, which may be in an holy manner, it being clear, that both God and man; both God the Father, and God the Son, may, and have pronounced curses in an holy manner, without giving evidence of any dissolution of that internal harmony which should be in them; and yet such a dissolution is to be acknowledged to have its place more or less in the best of men in this world, for they have flesh in them 3as well as spirit, but neither is nor can be in God. Secondly, I deny the consequence; for, it doth not follow, that, because it is not lawful for man to curse, therefore it is not lawful for God to curse. Are not Devils accursed? At the day of judgement shall not our Saviour pronounce that sentence on thousands, Go ye cursed into everlasting fire? And why should this argue any distraction in God, more then in a Judge that absolveth some, and condemneth others? So our Saviour at the day of judgement will say unto some, Go ye cursed into 4everlasting fire: unto others, Come ye blessed of my Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world. If you do not speak of blessing and cursing in the way of execution of judgement and reward, what mean you to walk thus in the cloud of generalities?