A14095:1130
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.
And herein you manifestly contradict your self, as who maintain, that whosoever is the author of the act, must therewithal be the author of the sinfulness thereof, for as much as sinfulness doth result (relative like) upon position of the foundation. And of this kind of argument I have found you wondrous confident, in a certain treatise of yours, though a very weak argument, and long ago proposed and answered by Capreolus, and whose answer thereunto is again rehearsed by Soncinas.
And herein you manifestly contradict your selfe, as who maintaine, that whosoever is the author of the act, must therewithall be the author of the sinnefullnesse thereof, for as much as sinfulnesse doth result (relative like) upon position of the foundation. And of this kinde of argument I have found you wondrous confident, in a certain treatise of yours, though a very weake argument, and long agoe proposed and answered by Capreolus, and whose answer thereunto is again rehearsed by Soncinas.
But here I show only how you make no bones of contradicting your self very handsomely, in saying, God doth infuse an act which is sinful, though not the sinfulness of it. The love of God (you say) though infinitely increased in every particular, and afterwards made up in one, could no way equalize Gods love towards every particular soul created by him. Thus you steal up, without all proof, the extension of Gods love to every particular; and that in infinite manner. Whereas the Scripture professeth as plainly, that God hath hated Esau, as that he hath loved Jacob. And seeing Gods love can be but infinite towards his elect, and towards his dearest Son, and towards himself, you make it infinite towards the very reprobates, whether men or devils: for every particular of them hath been created by him. Is not this good divinity, and very comfortable divinity? Yet no Arminian will say, that God so loved the Angels that were fallen, that he sent his Son to ⟨p. 502⟩die for them. When you say, The creatures for fear do not so much good for their little ones as they might; not so much for the model of their wit or strength, as God for his part (though infinite in wisdom and power) doth for the sons of men. As he said of his Bore that was sent him, Noster te non capit ignis conturbator Aper, so may I say of this your eloquence, that it passeth mine intelligence. I can neither construe your sentence, nor correct it.