A14095:811
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.
Secondly you say that in the divine essence all real effects are contained eminently; Now heretofore you told us, that For all things to be in God, is no more than that he alone can produce them. Ch. 4. num. 2. If this be your meaning in this place, as it seems, when you say they are in him eminently, for so we say that heat is in the Sun eminently, for as much as he doth produce heat in bodies capable; Then, I say, we deny not but all real effects are in God.
Secondly you say that in the divine essence all reall effects are conteined eminently; Now hertofore you told us, that For all things to be in God, is no more than that he alone can produce them. Ch. 4. num. 2. If this be your meaning in this place, as it seemes, when you say they are in him eminently, for so we say that heate is in the Sunne eminently, for as much as he doth produce heate in bodies capable; Then, I say, we deny not but all reall effects are in God.
But how doth this agree with your tenet, seeing herhence it follows that God can produce any act of Mans freewill, any casual thing and if he can so do, what hind•h but that he could from everlasting decree to produce them? Yet not alone as formerly you have interpreted what it is for things to be in God. For it is impossible that God should produce the act of mans will without man. For if without man, then it is not the act of mans will, which is an immanent act of the will.
But how doth this agree with your tenet, seing herhence it followes that God can produce any act of Mans freewill, any casuall thinge and if he can so doe, what hind•h but that he could from everlasting decree to produce them? Yet not alone as formerly you have interpreted what it is for things to be in God. For it is impossible that God should produce the act of mans will without man. For if without man, then it is not the act of mans will, which is an immanente act of the will.