A14095:889
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.
But let us proceed with you. It was, I doubt not, the will and pleasure of God to make his creatures mutable before they be immutably happy. But hence it followeth not, that this mutability ⟨p. 364⟩was necessarily prerequired. For how can that be said to be necessarily, which depended merely upon the free will and pleasure of God, without specification of so much as a congruous end intended by God, upon supposition whereof, this mutability of the creature might be said to be necessarily prerequired before their happiness? Now what kin this is to the immutability of God, or to the reconciling thereof to his freedom, let the Reader judge. As also of the sobriety of that which followeth; God in that he is absolutely perfect is essentially immutable, essentially free and immutably happy, because infinitely good. Then follows the order of immutability and freedom; that the ground of this, this the perfection of that. Yet many creatures are free without any such grown as immutability, and where the one is wanting, the other cannot be the perfection thereof. And if we speak of immutability in respect of second causes, is it not in the power of God to make the heavens, the Sun, Moon and Stars immutabl• which notwithstanding should not be any free agents. And undoubtedly, the immutability of Gods will rather supposeth the freedom thereof, then is presupposed by it. But these are matters of no great moment, that which followeth is of more, though you do but touch, and away, like the dog at the River Nilus, who fears the Crocodile, and it may be herein you fear some bug-bear also. Freedom it self (you say) were no absolute perfection unless it were immutably wedded unto goodness. Gods freedom then, you will have wedded unto goodness. In what sense is this delivered? I am of opinion that whatsoever God doth, it is impossible it should be otherwise then good. For it is impossible that God should transgress; As who hath no superior to give laws to him, but rather his will gives laws to all, yet in giving laws to others he gives none to himself.
But let us proceed with you. It was, I doubt not, the will and pleasure of God to make his creatures mutable before they be immutably happy. But hence it followeth not, that this mutability ⟨p. 364⟩was necessarily prerequired. For how can that be said to bee necessarily, which depended meerely upon the free will and pleasure of God, without specification of so much as a congruous end intended by God, upon supposition whereof, this mutability of the creature might be said to be necessarily prerequired before their happinesse? Now what kinne this is to the immutability of God, or to the reconciling thereof to his freedome, let the Reader judge. As also of the sobriety of that which followeth; God in that he is absolutely perfect is essentially immutable, essentially free and immutably happy, because infinitely good. Then followes the order of immutability and freedome; that the ground of this, this the perfection of that. Yet many creatures are free without any such growne as immutability, and where the one is wanting, the other cannot be the perfection thereof. And if we speake of immutabilitie in respect of second causes, is it not in the power of God to make the heavens, the Sunne, Moone and Starres immutabl which notwithstanding should not be any free agents. And undoubtedly, the immutability of Gods will rather supposeth the freedome thereof, then is presupposed by it. But these are matters of no great moment, that which followeth is of more, though you doe but touche, and away, like the dogge at the River Nilus, who feares the Crocodile, and it may be herein you feare some bug-beare also. Freedome it selfe (you say) were no absolute perfection unlesse it were immutably wedded unto goodnesse. Gods freedom then, you will have wedded unto goodnesse. In what sence is this delivered? I am of opinion that whatsoever God doth, it is impossible it should be otherwise then good. For it is impossible that God should transgresse; As who hath no superior to give lawes to him, but rather his will gives lawes to all, yet in giving lawes to others he gives none to himselfe.