A14095:726
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.
Most of all considering what here you seem to approve of in your additional, namely that Nothing can come to pass otherwise then God hath decreed. Now the case is clear that many things come to pass contingently, therefore it followeth that God also hath decreed, that even those things shall come to pass contingently; But I have had experience of your opinion to the contrary in another treatise of yours, wherein though you confess that God hath decreed the necessity of things, & the things themselves that necessarily come to pass, and grant that it cannot be otherwise, yet on the other side though you grant that God decreeth contingency, yet you deny that God decreeth the things themselves that do contingently come to pass. A most prodigious opinion, as if God did bring to pass the contingency of a thing (which is but modus rei, and contains no reality different from the thing it self) yet doth not bring to pass the thing it self; for if he did he must decree it also. And as directly opposite to the word of God, plainly testifying a multitude of contingent ⟨p. 275⟩things to have been decreed by God. The like ambiguity you content your self withal, when you say that God hath decreed that some effects shall be contingent, or as otherwise you express it, that some contingent effects shall be, which seems manifestly to imply as well the being or existence of them to be decreed by God as the contingent manner of their being.
Most of all considering what here you seeme to approve of in your additionall, namely that Nothing can come to passe otherwise then God hath decreed. Now the case is cleere that many things come to passe contingently, therfore it followeth that God allso hath decreed, that even those things shall come to passe contingently; But I have had experience of your opinion to the contrary in another treatise of yours, wherein though you confesse that God hath decreed the necessity of things, & the things themselfes that necessarily come to passe, and graunt that it cannot bee otherwise, yet on the other side though you graunt that God decreeth contingency, yet you deny that God decreeth the thinges themselfes that doe contingently come to passe. A most prodigious opinion, as if God did bring to passe the contingency of a thing (which is but modus rei, and containes no realitie different from the thing it selfe) yet doth not bring to passe the thing it selfe; for if he did he must decree it allso. And as directly opposite to the word of God, plainly testifying a multitude of contingent