A14095:904
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.
This I say better serves your turn, but this is not the inference whereupon you pass your denial, but rather quite cam as we say; Gods decree is immutable; herhence it followeth not that Judas his damnation, though foreset by God is immutable. Yet as for that inference proposed, which I said was more fitter for your turn, who ever said that God decreed Judas his damnation to be mutable, or the damnation of reprobates to be mutable? Who ever said that God decreed the salvation of Peter or Paul, or of any one of Gods elect to be mutable?
This I say better serves your turne, but this is not the inference whereupon you passe your denyall, but rather quite cam as we say; Gods decree is immutable; herhence it followeth not that Iudas his damnation, though foreset by God is immutable. Yet as for that inference proposed, which I sayd was more fitter for your turne, who ever sayd that God decreed Iudas his damnation to be mutable, or the damnation of reprobates to be mutable? Who ever sayd that God decreed the salvation of Peter or Paul, or of any one of Gods elect to be mutable?
And indeed, it were very absurd to say so: For the mutability of a thing supposeth the being of a thing. Now hath God ordained that the salvation of Gods elect, after they have obtained it, or the damnation of the reprobates after they suffer it, shall be mutable? Hath he not rather ordained the contrary both as touching his elect, that they shall ever be with the Lord, 1and as touching the reprobate that their Worm shall never dye, and their fire never be extinguished? Yet I confess either is simply mutable, in respect that God hath power to alter it. But this kind of mutability is not the object of Gods decree. For God doth not decree to take unto himself power to do this or that. Yet it is true, that by virtue of Gods decree some things come to pass contingently, and some things necessarily. But this is only in respect of the agency of second causes, some of them being made by God, agents natural working necessarily, some agents rational and free, working contingently and freely: Not in respect of Gods own agency, for whatsoever God doth work outwardly, that must needs come to pass contingently or freely: for it is not in the power of God to work necessarily; it is the perfection of God unalterable, to be necessarily, to work freely. Now the doom of any man is the work of God, and so is the condemnation