A14095:882
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.
As the perfection of God is above the perfection of any, of all creatures. The perfection of Angels is above the perfection of man. The perfection of men in the state of glory above the perfection of man in the state of innocency. Yet I see no cause why Adams state in creation should be counted a state of imperfection, rather then of perfection. And for ought I see, freedom unto evil is no more favouring of imperfection then freedom unto good, considering that they both make but one moral freedom. For to be morally free to do good quoad exercitium is to be free to choose whether a man will do good or no, and quoad specificationem, is to be free to choose whether he will do good or evil. So to be morally free to evil quoad exercitium is to be free to choose whether he will do evil or no; quoad specificationem is to be free to choose whether he will do evil or good. This discourse of mine hath proceeded according to your own phrase, that speaks of freedom unto evil, but to speak in mine ⟨p. 361⟩own phrase, I should not hastily speak of any freedom of the will of man to evil. You may say as well that the will of man in th• use of the eye is free to behold either colours or sounds which he will, or in the use of the ear is free to judge of sounds or colours as he will. There is a Common sense within, I confess, whereby the will is able to judge of these, but by the eye or ear she cannot.
As the perfection of God is above the perfection of any, of all creatures. The perfection of Angells is above the perfection of man. The perfection of men in the state of glory above the perfection of man in the state of innocency. Yet I see no cause why Adams state in creation should be counted a state of imperfection, rather then of perfection. And for ought I see, freedom unto evill is no more favouring of imperfection then freedome unto good, considering that they both make but one morall freedome. For to be morally free to doe good quoad exercitium is to be free to choose whether a man will doe good or no, and quoad specificationem, is to be free to choose whether he will doe good or evill. So to be morally free to evill quoad exercitium is to be free to choose whether he will doe evill or no; quoad specificationem is to be free to choose whether he will doe evill or good. This discourse of mine hath proceeded according to your owne phrase, that speaks of freedom unto evill, but to speak in mine ⟨p. 361⟩