A14095:1113
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.
This speech of yours is a gross unsavoury speech, transforming God into a natural and necessary agent: for, it is well known that the fire burns naturally and necessarily. And if God doth more essentially love his creatures, then he must naturally and necessarily preserve them in being, and cannot destroy them And because it is out of the same love that you derive the creation ⟨p. 491⟩of the world, it followeth, that God was necessitated by the necessity of nature to make the world; and consequently that the world was everlasting without beginning, and so shall continue without end. Behold the flowers that grow in the paradise of your contemplation, fitter for Aristotle's Physics, or Metaphysics, then for the meditations of a Christian Divine, as being fit only to make a nosegay for the Devil. The love of God towards himself is essential, towards his creatures is merely accidental. He needed not to have made them, neither is it any whit necessary that he should preserve them. And as creation and preservation are attributed of extrinsical denomination unto God, so is his love towards his creatures also. Neither was it out of love to the creature that he made the world, but out of love to himself, as who is the end of all. For, both Solomon professeth, that God 1made all things for himself: and Saint Paul likewise gives us to understand, that as things are from him, so all things are for him 2also. But Gods love is infinite, therefore, say you, it extends to all, seeing all are less then infinite. A proper argument, and as well suitable unto your text, which undertaketh only to show, that Gods love is infinite to mankind. And this argument proves as well, that it is extended to frogs and toads; to Angels and Devils, as well as to mankind. This is only to profess, that it extends to all. Now this is a very improper interpretation of infinite love: for less love, and less liberality, may extend to more then greater love, and greater liberality: for he that gives ten shillings to one person, is more liberal, then that divides five shillings amongst threescore persons, in giving them a penny apiece. Lastly, the fruit of this love can be but being: and is it not a proper commendation of Gods infinite love towards mankind, to say that he gives being unto all? And doth Gods love to man appear more herein, then to the vilest creature that is?