A14095:958
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.
Besides, by this discourse of yours you seem to acknowledge no other•d crees of God then in rewarding them according to their works; for hitherto tends the congruity of Gods decrees, which after your manner you amplify as no less congruous to the actions of men, then the skin to the body. A very good resemblance by the way, that as the skin doth befit the body, so Gods recompenses do befit mens ⟨p. 398⟩works. Yet this you apply most incongruously to Gods decrees (for thereof runs your discourse) and not to the executions of them, and withal as touching the actions of men, though never so gracious, though actions of faith, love, repentance, these I say are not objects of Gods decrees in your Divinity; but only the rewards of them. No not Cyrus his 1restoring of the Jews, nor Josiahs burning of the Prophets bones upon the Altar, nor the children of Israels coming out of Egypt, nor Pharaohs dimission of them; and infinite the like, God decreed none of these by your doctrine. He decreed only the contingency of these actions, not the actions themselves.
Besides, by this discourse of yours you seeme to acknowledge no other•d crees of God then in rewarding them according to their workes; for hitherto tends the congruity of Gods decrees, which after your manner you amplifie as no lesse congr•ous to the actions of men, then the skinne to the body. A very good resemblance by the way, that as the skin doth befit the body, so Gods recompences doe befit mens ⟨p. 398⟩workes. Yet this you apply most incongruously to Gods decrees (for thereof runnes your discourse) and not to the executions of them, and withall as touching the actions of men, though never so gracious, though actions of faith, love, repentance, these I say are not objects of Gods decrees in your Divinity; but onely the rewards of them. No not Cyrus his 1restoring of the Iewes, nor Iosiahs burning of the Prophets bones upon the Altar, nor the children of Israels comming out of Aegypt, nor Pharaohs dimission of them; and infinite the like, God decreed none of these by your doctrine. He decreed onely the contingency of these actions, not the actions themselves.