A14095:895
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.
Well, the ill sorting of them seems to be the conceiving of God to be freely immutable, and that you say implieth contradiction, if not unto the nature of immutability, yet unto the nature of absolute perfection, or to our true conceit of infinite being. I know no congruity of this discourse of yours. For freedom is only in respect of operation, not in respect of being. For freedom supposeth being according to the kind and nature of the thing which is said to be free. It were a very absurd thing to discourse that man is not freely a man, or that he were not freely reasonable. And no less absurd is it to tell us that God is not freely immutable. You might as well tell us that God is not freely God. And yet if we list to walk along with you in the like vanity of discourse, we might maintain that God is freely immutable, freely of absolute perfection, freely of infinite perfection, if you take freedom in opposition to coaction. For God is not immutable by coaction, nor of absolute perfection by coaction, nor of infinite being by coaction. And to be that which a man is freely, is better then to be that which he is by coaction.
Well, the ill sorting of them seemes to bee the conceiving of God to be freely immutable, and that you say implieth contradiction, if not unto the nature of immutability, yet unto the nature of absolute perfection, or to our true conceit of infinite being. I know no congruity of this discourse of yours. For freedome is onely in resp•ct of operation, not in respect of being. For freedome supposeth being according to the kinde and nature of the thing which is said to bee free. It were a very absurd thing to discourse that man is not freely a man, or that he were not freely reasonable. And no lesse absurd is it to tell us that God is not freely immutable. You might as well tell us that God is not freely God. And yet if we list to walke along with you in the like vanity of discourse, we might maintaine that God is freely immutable, freely of absolute perfection, freely of infinite perfection, if you take freedome in opposition to coaction. For God is not immutable by coaction, nor of absolute perfection by coaction, nor of infinite being by coaction. And to be that which a man is freely, is better then to be that which he is by coaction.